geforce 2 mx 64mb sdram for gpl

anyone had any problems with this type of card in gpl with the direct 3d patch. what sort of performance do u get on demanding tracks like 3rd party ones? i currently have a voodoo 3000 and am unfortuantely need to look elsewhere for improved performance for playback of my dvd's and the upcoming world sports car , any info would be very well appreciated. thanks Rich

Get a GTS...... Twice the performance of the MX, and no more than $80 more...... Rich wrote in message ...

Quoted text (11 lines)

>anyone had any problems with this type of card in gpl with the >direct 3d patch. what sort of performance do u get on demanding tracks >like 3rd party ones? > >i currently have a voodoo 3000 and am unfortuantely need to look >elsewhere for improved performance for playback of my dvd's and the >upcoming world sports car , any info would be very well appreciated. > >thanks > >Rich

Rich <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> anyone had any problems with this type of card in gpl with the > direct 3d patch. what sort of performance do u get on demanding tracks > like 3rd party ones? > > i currently have a voodoo 3000 and am unfortuantely need to look > elsewhere for improved performance for playback of my dvd's and the > upcoming world sports car , any info would be very well appreciated. > > thanks > > Rich

An MX card will be a step BACKWARDS for GPL. Your mileage will vary in other sims, but in GPL an MX card is definitely slower than a V3 - been there and tried it! Phillip...

Phillip Archer wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > Rich <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > anyone had any problems with this type of card in gpl with the > > direct 3d patch. what sort of performance do u get on demanding tracks > > like 3rd party ones? > > > > i currently have a voodoo 3000 and am unfortuantely need to look > > elsewhere for improved performance for playback of my dvd's and the > > upcoming world sports car , any info would be very well appreciated. > > > > thanks > > > > Rich > > An MX card will be a step BACKWARDS for GPL. Your mileage will vary in other > sims, but in GPL an MX card is definitely slower than a V3 - been there and > tried it! > Phillip...

I must second that; an MX a lot better in other racing games (CMR 2.0, N4 demo), but for GPL I think the Voodoo 3 is probably excellent. -Gregor

I bought a GE Force MX 32MB (hercules prophet) on Friday to replace a Voodoo 4 4500 . Here are my results on an Athlon 750 with 256MB RAM. I used the Hercules version 6-35 drivers for the GeForce, the refernce drivers wouldn't install correctly and gave me an error message when trying to access the advanced properties page, and version 1.04 drivers for the V4. I found the results rather shocking !! ;) First N4, 1024 x 768 with shadows and reflections etc. off, medium car detail and half way on the sliders for draw distance and world detail. V4 D3D: 40 to 60 fps, with a drop to about 35 in a pretty big accident. Open GL is pretty much unusable on a Voodoo card in N4, with framerates between 18 and 25 fps. GE Force MX Open GL: 40 to 70fps but in an accident the drop was to about 25 fps. The performance was slightly less in D3D, but not by much. Next GPL, 1024 X 768, rear of the grid at Monaco, full detail slider all graphics maxed out. V4 Glide: When entering track 30fps, dipping to the high 20's at the start but maxing at 36 by the end of T1 and staying there unless a big accident happens. V4 D3D: 25 fps when entering the track, dipping just below 20 but maxing at 36 by the time the field has spread except for the odd dip to 34 or 35. GE Force MX D3D: 20fps on entering track, dipping slightly on the start, but again maxing out after the field spreads, except in accidents or when the field bunches etc. Finally for race sims MBTR which has it's own benchmarking utility. I tested both cards at 800 x 600 using the recommended settings in the config utility. V4 4500: gave a benchmark of 70fps. GE Force MX: gave a benchmark of 35fps. I then tried them both in Unreal tournament, the V4 running in glide and D3D gave me an average framerate of about 60 fps. The Geforce running in D3D gave an average of just under 40fps. The slowdown in UT was unbearable at 1024 on the GeForce card, but was quite stable on the V4. Thinking about it, I should have given the GeForce a try in Open GL , but it was getting late, and I'd pretty much decided that it wasn't the card that I had hoped for. In conclusion, I had hoped for a good showing from the GeForce card, but felt very let down after hearing all the good reports about them in this and other newsgroups. The only sim it out performed my V4 was NASCAR 4, with other sims being slightly better on the V4 and MBTR and UT seriously knocking the performance of it. So i'll stick with my V4 for now (the GeForce has been returned from whence it came), and hopefully there will be a good video card manufacturer to take the fight to NVidia, possibly ATI with the Radeon, but at the moment they are rather expensive here in UK. -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Phillip Archer wrote: > > > > Rich <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > anyone had any problems with this type of card in gpl with the > > > direct 3d patch. what sort of performance do u get on demanding tracks > > > like 3rd party ones? > > > > > > i currently have a voodoo 3000 and am unfortuantely need to look > > > elsewhere for improved performance for playback of my dvd's and the > > > upcoming world sports car , any info would be very well appreciated. > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > Rich > > > > An MX card will be a step BACKWARDS for GPL. Your mileage will vary in other > > sims, but in GPL an MX card is definitely slower than a V3 - been there and > > tried it! > > Phillip... > > I must second that; an MX a lot better in other racing games (CMR 2.0, > N4 demo), but for GPL I think the Voodoo 3 is probably excellent. > > -Gregor

Hi, thank you for providing a thorough comparison. I would imagine both the cards being quite on par in performance. As you've shown it, it really depends on the games you try to run. N4 takes good advantage of T&L and this is probably where the slight edge came from. It would probably be even more obvious on a lower level machine as a faster processor could even be better off trying to do the T&L calcs itself instead of passing them to the card, depending on the situation, of course. I believe CMR2.0 also gains quite a lot from this. However, as these are mostly 'budget' cards (thogugh how high we've set our standards as to what 'budget' is in the recent times is mind boggling!), I don't expect them to be replaced by their owneers as soon as the next big little thing comes out, or they would have bought something better at this point. Therefore, there is a slight risk involved in sticking with the Voodoo's as when the first titles requiring DX8.0 will come out, there could be possible driver issues with the 3dfx cards. I would advise anyone going for a budget 'card' at this point to consider this issue as well. -Gregor Ian P wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > In conclusion, I had hoped for a good showing from the GeForce card, but > felt very let down after hearing all the good reports about them in this and > other newsgroups. The only sim it out performed my V4 was NASCAR 4, with > other sims being slightly better on the V4 and MBTR and UT seriously > knocking the performance of it. So i'll stick with my V4 for now (the > GeForce has been returned from whence it came), and hopefully there will be > a good video card manufacturer to take the fight to NVidia, possibly ATI > with the Radeon, but at the moment they are rather expensive here in UK. > > -- > Ian P > <email invalid due to spam> >

There are DX 8 compliant drivers by X3dfx available. And the guy who was hired to make the last two revisions of drivers for the V5/4 is doing more privately again. He has released v1.07.01 of his drivers.(these are the drivers that outperformed the company drivers by a little, enough to get him noticed and hired by 3dfx.) Anyone have the current link? I don't think I saved it... dave henrie "Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> Hi, > > thank you for providing a thorough comparison. I would imagine both the > cards being quite on par in performance. As you've shown it, it really > depends on the games you try to run. > > N4 takes good advantage of T&L and this is probably where the slight > edge came from. It would probably be even more obvious on a lower level > machine as a faster processor could even be better off trying to do the > T&L calcs itself instead of passing them to the card, depending on the > situation, of course. I believe CMR2.0 also gains quite a lot from this. > > However, as these are mostly 'budget' cards (thogugh how high we've set > our standards as to what 'budget' is in the recent times is mind > boggling!), I don't expect them to be replaced by their owneers as soon > as the next big little thing comes out, or they would have bought > something better at this point. Therefore, there is a slight risk > involved in sticking with the Voodoo's as when the first titles > requiring DX8.0 will come out, there could be possible driver issues > with the 3dfx cards. I would advise anyone going for a budget 'card' at > this point to consider this issue as well. > > -Gregor > > Ian P wrote: > > > > In conclusion, I had hoped for a good showing from the GeForce card, but > > felt very let down after hearing all the good reports about them in this

and > > other newsgroups. The only sim it out performed my V4 was NASCAR 4, with > > other sims being slightly better on the V4 and MBTR and UT seriously > > knocking the performance of it. So i'll stick with my V4 for now (the > > GeForce has been returned from whence it came), and hopefully there willbe

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > a good video card manufacturer to take the fight to NVidia, possibly ATI > > with the Radeon, but at the moment they are rather expensive here in UK. > > > > -- > > Ian P > > <email invalid due to spam> > >

Please bare in mind the MX cards are using SDR ram not DDR. This make a big difference in performance. Any MX card is going to be much slower then the DDR counterp[art. Thus the price difference. "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7eRo6.11909$I5.339481@stones... > I bought a GE Force MX 32MB (hercules prophet) on Friday to replace aVoodoo > 4 4500 . > Here are my results on an Athlon 750 with 256MB RAM. > I used the Hercules version 6-35 drivers for the GeForce, the refernce > drivers wouldn't install correctly and gave me an error message whentrying > to access the advanced properties page, and version 1.04 drivers for theV4. > I found the results rather shocking !! ;) > > First N4, 1024 x 768 with shadows and reflections etc. off, medium car > detail and half way on the sliders for draw distance and world detail. > V4 D3D: 40 to 60 fps, with a drop to about 35 in a pretty big accident.Open > GL is pretty much unusable on a Voodoo card in N4, with framerates between > 18 and 25 fps. > GE Force MX Open GL: 40 to 70fps but in an accident the drop was to about25

Quoted text (8 lines)

> fps. The performance was slightly less in D3D, but not by much. > > Next GPL, 1024 X 768, rear of the grid at Monaco, full detail slider all > graphics maxed out. > V4 Glide: When entering track 30fps, dipping to the high 20's at the start > but maxing at 36 by the end of T1 and staying there unless a big accident > happens. > V4 D3D: 25 fps when entering the track, dipping just below 20 but maxing

at > 36 by the time the field has spread except for the odd dip to 34 or 35. > GE Force MX D3D: 20fps on entering track, dipping slightly on the start,but > again maxing out after the field spreads, except in accidents or when the > field bunches etc. > > Finally for race sims MBTR which has it's own benchmarking utility. Itested

Quoted text (7 lines)

> both cards at 800 x 600 using the recommended settings in the config > utility. > > V4 4500: gave a benchmark of 70fps. > GE Force MX: gave a benchmark of 35fps. > > I then tried them both in Unreal tournament, the V4 running in glide and

D3D > gave me an average framerate of about 60 fps. The Geforce running in D3D > gave an average of just under 40fps. The slowdown in UT was unbearable at > 1024 on the GeForce card, but was quite stable on the V4. Thinking aboutit, > I should have given the GeForce a try in Open GL , but it was gettinglate, > and I'd pretty much decided that it wasn't the card that I had hoped for. > > In conclusion, I had hoped for a good showing from the GeForce card, but > felt very let down after hearing all the good reports about them in thisand > other newsgroups. The only sim it out performed my V4 was NASCAR 4, with > other sims being slightly better on the V4 and MBTR and UT seriously > knocking the performance of it. So i'll stick with my V4 for now (the > GeForce has been returned from whence it came), and hopefully there willbe

Quoted text (16 lines)

> a good video card manufacturer to take the fight to NVidia, possibly ATI > with the Radeon, but at the moment they are rather expensive here in UK. > > -- > Ian P > <email invalid due to spam> > > > Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Phillip Archer wrote: > > > > > > Rich <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > anyone had any problems with this type of card in gpl with the > > > > direct 3d patch. what sort of performance do u get on demanding

tracks

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > > like 3rd party ones? > > > > > > > > i currently have a voodoo 3000 and am unfortuantely need to look > > > > elsewhere for improved performance for playback of my dvd's and the > > > > upcoming world sports car , any info would be very well appreciated. > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > > > Rich > > > > > > An MX card will be a step BACKWARDS for GPL. Your mileage will vary in > other > > > sims, but in GPL an MX card is definitely slower than a V3 - been

there

Quoted text (10 lines)

> and > > > tried it! > > > Phillip... > > > > I must second that; an MX a lot better in other racing games (CMR 2.0, > > N4 demo), but for GPL I think the Voodoo 3 is probably excellent. > > > > -Gregor > >

Bare in mind that this is not necessarily the case. My Creative Labs GF2 MX had DDR memory Ash "Lannie Schafroth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:98329o$vk4$[email hidden]... | Please bare in mind the MX cards are using SDR ram not DDR. This make abig | difference in performance. Any MX card is going to be much slower thenthe

Quoted text (20 lines)

| DDR counterp[art. Thus the price difference. | | "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message | news:7eRo6.11909$I5.339481@stones... | > I bought a GE Force MX 32MB (hercules prophet) on Friday to replace a | Voodoo | > 4 4500 . | > Here are my results on an Athlon 750 with 256MB RAM. | > I used the Hercules version 6-35 drivers for the GeForce, the refernce | > drivers wouldn't install correctly and gave me an error message when | trying | > to access the advanced properties page, and version 1.04 drivers for the | V4. | > I found the results rather shocking !! ;) | > | > First N4, 1024 x 768 with shadows and reflections etc. off, medium car | > detail and half way on the sliders for draw distance and world detail. | > V4 D3D: 40 to 60 fps, with a drop to about 35 in a pretty big accident. | Open | > GL is pretty much unusable on a Voodoo card in N4, with framerates

between | > 18 and 25 fps. | > GE Force MX Open GL: 40 to 70fps but in an accident the drop was toabout | 25 | > fps. The performance was slightly less in D3D, but not by much. | > | > Next GPL, 1024 X 768, rear of the grid at Monaco, full detail slider all | > graphics maxed out. | > V4 Glide: When entering track 30fps, dipping to the high 20's at thestart | > but maxing at 36 by the end of T1 and staying there unless a bigaccident | > happens. | > V4 D3D: 25 fps when entering the track, dipping just below 20 butmaxing | at | > 36 by the time the field has spread except for the odd dip to 34 or 35. | > GE Force MX D3D: 20fps on entering track, dipping slightly on the start, | but | > again maxing out after the field spreads, except in accidents or whenthe

Quoted text (14 lines)

| > field bunches etc. | > | > Finally for race sims MBTR which has it's own benchmarking utility. I | tested | > both cards at 800 x 600 using the recommended settings in the config | > utility. | > | > V4 4500: gave a benchmark of 70fps. | > GE Force MX: gave a benchmark of 35fps. | > | > I then tried them both in Unreal tournament, the V4 running in glide and | D3D | > gave me an average framerate of about 60 fps. The Geforce running in D3D | > gave an average of just under 40fps. The slowdown in UT was unbearable

at | > 1024 on the GeForce card, but was quite stable on the V4. Thinking about | it, | > I should have given the GeForce a try in Open GL , but it was getting | late, | > and I'd pretty much decided that it wasn't the card that I had hopedfor.

Quoted text (30 lines)

| > | > In conclusion, I had hoped for a good showing from the GeForce card, but | > felt very let down after hearing all the good reports about them in this | and | > other newsgroups. The only sim it out performed my V4 was NASCAR 4, with | > other sims being slightly better on the V4 and MBTR and UT seriously | > knocking the performance of it. So i'll stick with my V4 for now (the | > GeForce has been returned from whence it came), and hopefully there will | be | > a good video card manufacturer to take the fight to NVidia, possibly ATI | > with the Radeon, but at the moment they are rather expensive here in UK. | > | > -- | > Ian P | > <email invalid due to spam> | > | > | > Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message | > news:[email hidden]... | > > Phillip Archer wrote: | > > > | > > > Rich <[email hidden]> wrote in message | > > > news:[email hidden]... | > > > > anyone had any problems with this type of card in gpl with the | > > > > direct 3d patch. what sort of performance do u get on demanding | tracks | > > > > like 3rd party ones? | > > > > | > > > > i currently have a voodoo 3000 and am unfortuantely need to look | > > > > elsewhere for improved performance for playback of my dvd's and

the | > > > > upcoming world sports car , any info would be very wellappreciated. | > > > > | > > > > thanks | > > > > | > > > > Rich | > > > | > > > An MX card will be a step BACKWARDS for GPL. Your mileage will varyin

Quoted text (15 lines)

| > other | > > > sims, but in GPL an MX card is definitely slower than a V3 - been | there | > and | > > > tried it! | > > > Phillip... | > > | > > I must second that; an MX a lot better in other racing games (CMR 2.0, | > > N4 demo), but for GPL I think the Voodoo 3 is probably excellent. | > > | > > -Gregor | > | > | |

Does the Voodoo 4 use DDR ram ? -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> Lannie Schafroth <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:98329o$vk4$[email hidden]... > Please bare in mind the MX cards are using SDR ram not DDR. This make a big > difference in performance. Any MX card is going to be much slower then the > DDR counterp[art. Thus the price difference. >

Good point, though the main issue of my post was just to show the results of my system with the sims I use with the two graphics cards :) -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Hi, > > thank you for providing a thorough comparison. I would imagine both the > cards being quite on par in performance. As you've shown it, it really > depends on the games you try to run. > > N4 takes good advantage of T&L and this is probably where the slight > edge came from. It would probably be even more obvious on a lower level > machine as a faster processor could even be better off trying to do the > T&L calcs itself instead of passing them to the card, depending on the > situation, of course. I believe CMR2.0 also gains quite a lot from this. > > However, as these are mostly 'budget' cards (thogugh how high we've set > our standards as to what 'budget' is in the recent times is mind > boggling!), I don't expect them to be replaced by their owneers as soon > as the next big little thing comes out, or they would have bought > something better at this point. Therefore, there is a slight risk > involved in sticking with the Voodoo's as when the first titles > requiring DX8.0 will come out, there could be possible driver issues > with the 3dfx cards. I would advise anyone going for a budget 'card' at > this point to consider this issue as well. > > -Gregor >

no "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:GEfp6.12284$I5.353293@stones... > Does the Voodoo 4 use DDR ram ? >

Some of the MX cards (e.g. Creative) do indeed have DDR RAM, but you should be aware that this is 64bit DDR RAM compared to the 128bit SDR RAM used otherwise, and in the end there isn't much difference between the two. In fact, in most cases the SDR seems to perform better. -Gregor Ashley McConnell wrote: > > Bare in mind that this is not necessarily the case. My Creative Labs GF2 MX > had DDR memory > > Ash >

Thanks Dave, I wasn't sure whether I was doing a valid comparison :) -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0Lgp6.518870$[email hidden]... > no > "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:GEfp6.12284$I5.353293@stones... > > Does the Voodoo 4 use DDR ram ? > > > >

"Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:QZqp6.12329$I5.355013@stones... > Thanks Dave, I wasn't sure whether I was doing a valid comparison :) > > -- > Ian P > <email invalid due to spam> I think ONE of the areas that 3dfx ALWAYS lagged behind was their memory choices. When the world was trying Vram, they stuck with Dram. When SDram began to move, they stuck with Dram. Finally when ddr became available they were just moving to sdram and selling the company. dave henrie(still glad to have a V5 btw)