Re: OT..GT3

The Driver wrote: > Is it worth buying a PSX2.........just for this game and maybe > Lemans......... > > I have Lemans on my DC and it`s great....any better... > >IMHO, Yes, it's worth it. Have you read the preview of LeMans for the PS2? It has many improvements. http://ps2.ign.com/previews/16029.html Also, be on the lookout for Lotus Challenge http://ps2.ign.com/previews/15101.html -- Stuff You Gotta Have software for BeOS and PalmOS http://www.stuffyougottahave.com/

Is it worth buying a PSX2.........just for this game and maybe Lemans......... I have Lemans on my DC and it`s great....any better...

I'd say not, GT3 is enjoyable and nice to look at but at the end of the day it's the same game as GT and GT2. If you've ever played either of these extensively then you won't find very much new stuff in GT3. A friend of mine bought a PS2 and GT3 last weekend and we spent all of Saturday and Sunday playing it, but the �350 was probably better spent on a couple of PC games and �300 change... "The Driver" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9kkbdd$6eo$[email hidden]... > Is it worth buying a PSX2.........just for this game and maybe > Lemans......... > > I have Lemans on my DC and it`s great....any better... > >

I don't think that any 1 or 2 games is really worth spending $350 for ( GPL included ) , but there are many more games on the PS2 that make it well worth the money, not to mention all the great games that will be coming out in the future. I think that the well is going to run a bit dry for PC games over the next few years, with the advent of the power of XBOX and PS2 and Gamecube. I intend to continue upgrading my PC over the years in order to play those few special games that will no doubt run better on the latest PC hardware, but I think the law of diminishing returns is beginning to apply to hardware horsepower and videogaming. The Dreamcast does 3 million polys per second versus 66 million for PS2 and 150 million for XBOX and 20 million or so for the latest PC hardware, and yet there are becoming fewer and fewer differences between what you see on these systems despite orders of magnitude of differences in computing power. Consequently, I doubt that a 4 GHZ PC with a Geforce 5 will exhibit as much difference in games playable versus an XBOX as say a 300 MHZ P2 with a VooDoo2 versus a Sega Genesis. My point is that a PS2 and the XBOX will almost certainly have alot of excellent games over the life of the systems, games which will never be available on a PC in many cases,making them well worth the purchase, in addition to owning a good PC. "The Driver" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9kkbdd$6eo$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Is it worth buying a PSX2.........just for this game and maybe > Lemans......... > > I have Lemans on my DC and it`s great....any better... > > >

Take all these triangle counts with a *huge* grain of salt. The X-Box will never get anywhere near 150 million tris/sec in a real game. The PS2 will never get anywhere near 66 million tris/sec in a real game. Also the DC can do more than 3 million tris/sec. The T&L unit on the X-Box video hardware is pretty much the same as a GF3 which can do about 25 million tris/sec. I don't see where they're going to get 6x times the performance from. Anyway, I totally agree with your point that there are enough good games on the PS2 to make it worth buying :) "Olly Greenfield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Khtb7.1850$[email hidden]... > I don't think that any 1 or 2 games is really worth spending $350 for (GPL > included ) , but there are many more games on the PS2 that make it well > worth the money, not to mention all the great games that will be comingout > in the future. I think that the well is going to run a bit dry for PCgames > over the next few years, with the advent of the power of XBOX and PS2 and > Gamecube. I intend to continue upgrading my PC over the years in order to > play those few special games that will no doubt run better on the latestPC > hardware, but I think the law of diminishing returns is beginning to apply > to hardware horsepower and videogaming. The Dreamcast does 3 million polys > per second versus 66 million for PS2 and 150 million for XBOX and 20million > or so for the latest PC hardware, and yet there are becoming fewer andfewer > differences between what you see on these systems despite orders of > magnitude of differences in computing power. Consequently, I doubt that a4 > GHZ PC with a Geforce 5 will exhibit as much difference in games playable > versus an XBOX as say a 300 MHZ P2 with a VooDoo2 versus a Sega Genesis.My > point is that a PS2 and the XBOX will almost certainly have alot of > excellent games over the life of the systems, games which will never be > available on a PC in many cases,making them well worth the purchase, in > addition to owning a good PC. >

For comparison purposes, from www.nvidia.com -> GF3 = 800 billion ops/sec XBOX = 1000 billion ops/sec That sounds like 25% faster to me, rather than 600%. I've nothing against Microsoft personally, but I suspect the 150 million tris/sec figure to be marketting BS. "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:n6wb7.76818$[email hidden]... > Take all these triangle counts with a *huge* grain of salt. The X-Boxwill > never get anywhere near 150 million tris/sec in a real game. The PS2 will > never get anywhere near 66 million tris/sec in a real game. Also the DCcan > do more than 3 million tris/sec. > > The T&L unit on the X-Box video hardware is pretty much the same as a GF3 > which can do about 25 million tris/sec. I don't see where they're goingto > get 6x times the performance from. > > Anyway, I totally agree with your point that there are enough good gameson > the PS2 to make it worth buying :) >

I am wondering about the GF3. If we look at Nivdia's history, we should expect a GF3+ model. And frankly, from what I've seen so far, the GF3 comes to a crawl when all the DX8 and programming features are enabled. So is the GF3 like the TnT? The origianl TnT was able to run 32 bit software, but was the card CAPABLE of running that level of color fast? The TnT2 had TnL but was it Capable of taking advantage of that feature? Really should we expect the GF3 to be just a moderately powerful video system? When and if the next version of the GF3 comes out, it most likely will match up with the Xbox specs. But will that mean the GF3 buyers are already buying an outdated card? And finally, was the GF3 DELIBERATELY underclocked to not show up the upcomming Xbox? I have the questions, who has the answers? dave henrie "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:n6wb7.76818$[email hidden]... > Take all these triangle counts with a *huge* grain of salt. The X-Boxwill > never get anywhere near 150 million tris/sec in a real game. The PS2 will > never get anywhere near 66 million tris/sec in a real game. Also the DCcan > do more than 3 million tris/sec. > > The T&L unit on the X-Box video hardware is pretty much the same as a GF3 > which can do about 25 million tris/sec. I don't see where they're goingto > get 6x times the performance from. > > Anyway, I totally agree with your point that there are enough good gameson

Quoted text (12 lines)

> the PS2 to make it worth buying :) > > "Olly Greenfield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Khtb7.1850$[email hidden]... > > I don't think that any 1 or 2 games is really worth spending $350 for ( > GPL > > included ) , but there are many more games on the PS2 that make it well > > worth the money, not to mention all the great games that will be coming > out > > in the future. I think that the well is going to run a bit dry for PC > games > > over the next few years, with the advent of the power of XBOX and PS2

and > > Gamecube. I intend to continue upgrading my PC over the years in orderto > > play those few special games that will no doubt run better on the latest > PC > > hardware, but I think the law of diminishing returns is beginning toapply > > to hardware horsepower and videogaming. The Dreamcast does 3 millionpolys > > per second versus 66 million for PS2 and 150 million for XBOX and 20 > million > > or so for the latest PC hardware, and yet there are becoming fewer and > fewer > > differences between what you see on these systems despite orders of > > magnitude of differences in computing power. Consequently, I doubt thata > 4 > > GHZ PC with a Geforce 5 will exhibit as much difference in gamesplayable > > versus an XBOX as say a 300 MHZ P2 with a VooDoo2 versus a SegaGenesis.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> My > > point is that a PS2 and the XBOX will almost certainly have alot of > > excellent games over the life of the systems, games which will never be > > available on a PC in many cases,making them well worth the purchase, in > > addition to owning a good PC. > > > > >

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> I am wondering about the GF3. If we look at Nivdia's history, we should > expect a GF3+ model. And frankly, from what I've seen so far, the GF3 comes > to a crawl when all the DX8 and programming features are enabled. > So is the GF3 like the TnT? The origianl TnT was able to run 32 bit > software, but was the card CAPABLE of running that level of color fast? > The TnT2 had TnL but was it Capable of taking advantage of that feature? > Really should we expect the GF3 to be just a moderately powerful video > system? When and if the next version of the GF3 comes out, it most likely > will match up with the Xbox specs. But will that mean the GF3 buyers are > already buying an outdated card? And finally, was the GF3 DELIBERATELY > underclocked to not show up the upcomming Xbox? I have the questions, who > has the answers?

I don't understand where your rant is going. how about: is the GF3 the fastest (consumer) card? are we going to see a faster card anytime soon? aren't we always? -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 gitaren er en sjingke

It all depends on your perspective. If you were about to buy a video card and had �300 (uk) to spend, then the GF3 is still the best card to get. The GF3 and GF2 Ultra are the same price, and the GF3 has faster 32-bit performance, environmental bump mapping, faster FSAA and pixel shading. Maybe those four things don't add up to much in reality, but you'd still rather have them than not have them if there was no price difference. If you didn't have �300, or were looking for the best value for money, then clearly the GF2 Pro at �160 gives you way more power / pound (or dollar). As for pixel shaders specifically, the Doom 3 movie was running pretty well on a GF3. On Nvidia under-clocking the GF3, I'm not one for conspiracy theories in general, but it is a little suspicious that the card hardly over-clocks at all. Maybe Nvidia don't want us to know how fast it can go? "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:xOwb7.27742$[email hidden]... > I am wondering about the GF3. If we look at Nivdia's history, we should > expect a GF3+ model. And frankly, from what I've seen so far, the GF3comes > to a crawl when all the DX8 and programming features are enabled. > So is the GF3 like the TnT? The origianl TnT was able to run 32 bit > software, but was the card CAPABLE of running that level of color fast? > The TnT2 had TnL but was it Capable of taking advantage of that feature? > Really should we expect the GF3 to be just a moderately powerful video > system? When and if the next version of the GF3 comes out, it mostlikely > will match up with the Xbox specs. But will that mean the GF3 buyers are > already buying an outdated card? And finally, was the GF3 DELIBERATELY > underclocked to not show up the upcomming Xbox? I have the questions, who > has the answers? > dave henrie

"The Driver" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Is it worth buying a PSX2.........just for this game and maybe >Lemans......... Hard to say ... it is the most addictive driving game (arcade or sim) I've played in a long time. But it's a lot of money for one game. I'd put it like this ... GT3 is part of the second-year PS2 games. There are a few more coming this year that should be at a similar level of quality (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid 2) and a bunch more that are generally better than the launch titles. So as a game console the PS2 is definitely maturing and worth owning now. Plus you can rent the games at your video store, which is nice. Joe McGinn _____________________ Radical Entertainment

OK some interesting points tobe read here, Thanks again all !

"Gunnar Horrigmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... : > is the GF3 the fastest (consumer) card? > are we going to see a faster card anytime soon? > aren't we always? sorry for being dense...try this.. are the features that are included with the GeeWhiz 3 overpowering the card? i.e. will I have to buy the Gee Whiz 3.5mx6500 to play a game next year with all the currently available DX8 programable features enabled? a-la all the original tnt purchasers who found that while thier card could indeed display 32bit color...no game ran faster than a slide show using it. dave henrie > > -- > Gunnar > #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 > gitaren er en sjingke

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> "Gunnar Horrigmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > : > > is the GF3 the fastest (consumer) card? > > are we going to see a faster card anytime soon? > > aren't we always? > > sorry for being dense...try this.. > are the features that are included with the GeeWhiz 3 overpowering the card? > i.e. will I have to buy the Gee Whiz 3.5mx6500 to play a game next year with > all the currently available DX8 programable features enabled?

of course you will. hasn't it always been like that? -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 DE RECTIS NON TOLERANDUM EST

You've always got the option of turning those features off in the game, and then the GF3 is still gonna run all your games faster than a GF2. Anyway, Giants and the Doom 3 movie were both running fine with those advanced features. "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:vRHb7.29732$[email hidden]... > > sorry for being dense...try this.. > are the features that are included with the GeeWhiz 3 overpowering thecard? > i.e. will I have to buy the Gee Whiz 3.5mx6500 to play a game next yearwith > all the currently available DX8 programable features enabled? a-la allthe > original tnt purchasers who found that while thier card could indeeddisplay > 32bit color...no game ran faster than a slide show using it. > dave henrie >

> Is it worth buying a PSX2.........just for this game and maybe > Lemans......... I would say definatly not. GT3 is a cool game, but it gets really old, really quick. Lemans on the PS2 is not going to be that much different from the version your using.

On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 14:52:52 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You've always got the option of turning those features off in the game, and >then the GF3 is still gonna run all your games faster than a GF2. You sure about that? I was getting faster frame rates on my GF2 than someone on their GF3 (exacts same cpu) in MS Train Sim.

I'm sure you realize that how your PC and someone elses PC runs one particular game doesn't make a very watertight case :) All it takes is a few bios settings wrong and this guy with the GF3 could be costing himself 30% performance. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that most of the evidence i've seen suggests the GF3 is faster. I'm basing that on the GF3 reviews (with benchmarks) i've seen, plus the average 3DMark 2001 scores i've seen for the GF2 and GF3 (GF3 scores around 5000, GF2 around 3500). "0x4E0x6F0x73" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 14:52:52 GMT, "Simon Brown" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >You've always got the option of turning those features off in the game,and > >then the GF3 is still gonna run all your games faster than a GF2. > > You sure about that? I was getting faster frame rates on my GF2 than > someone on their GF3 (exacts same cpu) in MS Train Sim.

High-end Geeforce two memory is clocked at something like 250hz and the memory of the Geeforce 3 is like 200hz...(Those #'s could be off but the relationship is correct.) Even with the right tweeks, if you run something that does not address the geeforce 3's strengths, then the 2 will open up a can of whup-ass on it. Go to ultra high resolutions and both cards will slow down, but the slowdown will be much less painful on the 3. (as we say in France....6 of 1, half a dozen of another) {{of course I would need an English to French speech digitizer to actually SAY that...since I try not to speak with hairballs in the back of my throat...}} :> dave henrie "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:uQic7.101384$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I'm sure you realize that how your PC and someone elses PC runs one > particular game doesn't make a very watertight case :) All it takes is a > few bios settings wrong and this guy with the GF3 could be costing himself > 30% performance. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that most of the > evidence i've seen suggests the GF3 is faster. > > I'm basing that on the GF3 reviews (with benchmarks) i've seen, plus the > average 3DMark 2001 scores i've seen for the GF2 and GF3 (GF3 scores

around

Quoted text (15 lines)

> 5000, GF2 around 3500). > > "0x4E0x6F0x73" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 14:52:52 GMT, "Simon Brown" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >You've always got the option of turning those features off in the game, > and > > >then the GF3 is still gonna run all your games faster than a GF2. > > > > You sure about that? I was getting faster frame rates on my GF2 than > > someone on their GF3 (exacts same cpu) in MS Train Sim. > >

On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 22:13:46 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>I'm sure you realize that how your PC and someone elses PC runs one >particular game doesn't make a very watertight case :) All it takes is a >few bios settings wrong and this guy with the GF3 could be costing himself >30% performance. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that most of the >evidence i've seen suggests the GF3 is faster. > >I'm basing that on the GF3 reviews (with benchmarks) i've seen, plus the >average 3DMark 2001 scores i've seen for the GF2 and GF3 (GF3 scores around >5000, GF2 around 3500).

I'm not denying it is faster, but not in all cases. Just like a Geforce2 Ultra only shows itself as being faster when you run at really high res and/or 32bit. It's been said that the GF3 is not so fast at running FS2K so I think there is more to it than just PC optimization. The GF3 is not much faster than a GF2 unless the graphics engine is optimized for it. That's been said many times in reviews of the GF3.

Fair enough :) From my own perspective, owning a GF2 Pro 64 MB, I wouldn't consider getting a GF2 Ultra, but I would consider getting a GF3, for the extra features and the 32-bit speed, and because I program a bit of D3D now and then and the GF3 has the better DirectX8 support. "0x4E0x6F0x73" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > I'm not denying it is faster, but not in all cases. Just like a > Geforce2 Ultra only shows itself as being faster when you run at > really high res and/or 32bit. It's been said that the GF3 is not so > fast at running FS2K so I think there is more to it than just PC > optimization. The GF3 is not much faster than a GF2 unless the > graphics engine is optimized for it. That's been said many times in > reviews of the GF3.

Ok, understood. I still think overall, it's got the edge over a GF2 Ultra because of the pixel shader support. You basically have to rely on the developers not to over-use these features to the point that the card is brought to it's knees. I guess it would also be the card of choice for the FSAA brigade and the 32-bit brigade, but I'm not a member of those clubs :) "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:IIjc7.2844$[email hidden]... > High-end Geeforce two memory is clocked at something like 250hz and the > memory of the Geeforce 3 is like 200hz...(Those #'s could be off but the > relationship is correct.) Even with the right tweeks, if you runsomething > that does not address the geeforce 3's strengths, then the 2 will open upa > can of whup-ass on it. > Go to ultra high resolutions and both cards will slow down, but the > slowdown will be much less painful on the 3. (as we say in France....6of > 1, half a dozen of another) {{of course I would need an English to French > speech digitizer to actually SAY that...since I try not to speak with > hairballs in the back of my throat...}} :> > dave henrie

On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 02:07:14 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Fair enough :) From my own perspective, owning a GF2 Pro 64 MB, I wouldn't >consider getting a GF2 Ultra, but I would consider getting a GF3, for the >extra features and the 32-bit speed, and because I program a bit of D3D now >and then and the GF3 has the better DirectX8 support. Sure, I would buy one too if the price was a bit lower. It appeals to me because it has FSAA and antiostropic filtering that doesn't kill the frame rates. Plus a more powerful T&L unit.

Question: Not sure but isnt the GF3 in the hi$200s-lo$300s now? "0x4E0x6F0x73" wrote: | Sure, I would buy one too if the price was a bit lower. It appeals to | me because it has FSAA and antiostropic filtering that doesn't kill | the frame rates. Plus a more powerful T&L unit. |"Simon Brown" wrote: | >Fair enough :) From my own perspective, owning a GF2 Pro 64 MB, Iwouldn't | >consider getting a GF2 Ultra, but I would consider getting a GF3, for the | >extra features and the 32-bit speed, and because I program a bit of D3Dnow | >and then and the GF3 has the better DirectX8 support. | --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: 7/18/2001

On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 21:42:44 GMT, "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote: >Question: Not sure but isnt the GF3 in the hi$200s-lo$300s now? Maybe in the U.S., but acroos the 49th it is well over $600 CAD. If it was $400.00 CAD I might buy. I paid $330.00 CAD for an Asus GF2 Deluxe.

Ouch! and I thought it stunk living in the Garbage State aka NJ.. "0x4E0x6F0x73" wrote: | Maybe in the U.S., but acroos the 49th it is well over $600 CAD. If it | was $400.00 CAD I might buy. I paid $330.00 CAD for an Asus GF2 | Deluxe. |"Thom j." wrote: | >Question: Not sure but isnt the GF3 in the hi$200s-lo$300s now? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: 7/18/2001