Voodoo5 is $147 after coupon, get one !

Copied these posts off 3dfx.products.voodoo5 staples.com pricematches. I just called and ordered the 5500. Got them to pricematch onvia.com to $177.60 ( http://www.onvia.com/usa/products/index.cfm?Task=ViewProduct&SearchText=3dfx &IdCatalog=2502983 ). Then used the $40 off $150 coupon (#90585 exp. nov.30). http://www.techbargains.com/coupons.cfm 177.60 - 40.00 + 9.63 (tax) free shipping ----------- $147.23 rms [email hidden]

ATI is notorious for either terrible drivers, or not producing a suitable driver all together. This has held them back for years. Its pretty common knowledge in the computer hardware industry. Check any hardware site such as anandtech.com. Its not a new thing, its been standard practice with them for most of the last 5-7 years. Looks like the final shootout will be ATI and nVidia. Who'd a thunk it! Judge On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 18:43:19 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 13:53:24 -0500, Judge <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>I have been a 3dfx man since the vooodoo 1, but it looks like they are >>out to pasture, following in the footsteps of ATI, who can make a >>video card, just not drivers to run the damn thing. > >Huh?

Although the V5 is a good card, its not nearly as good as the current king of price point video cards - the Creative Labs Annilihator MX. Its going for $129 retail, and as low as $120 on the web. I have been a 3dfx man since the vooodoo 1, but it looks like they are out to pasture, following in the footsteps of ATI, who can make a video card, just not drivers to run the damn thing. Judge ======================================== On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:50:44 GMT, "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

>Copied these posts off 3dfx.products.voodoo5 > >staples.com pricematches. I just called and ordered the 5500. Got them to >pricematch onvia.com to $177.60 ( >http://www.onvia.com/usa/products/index.cfm?Task=ViewProduct&SearchText=3dfx >&IdCatalog=2502983 ). Then used the $40 off $150 coupon (#90585 exp. >nov.30). >http://www.techbargains.com/coupons.cfm > >177.60 >- 40.00 >+ 9.63 (tax) >free shipping >----------- >$147.23 > > >rms >[email hidden] > >

Keystone, you make an argument like an old lady: flatly deny something that's obviously correct, then go off in a completely different direction with complete conviction that what you're saying makes some logical sense. It doesn't. 3dfx have always had strong driver support. Period. You can't change that. Now, if you want to talk about poorly directed R&D, I would argue that you're wrong. Without 3dfx's implementation of FSAA (read: latest tangible results of their R&D $) is the best there is at the moment. "Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gHlS5.668241$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:OCjS5.6154$[email hidden]... > > > > "Todd Walker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > He is talking about ATI, not 3Dfx. > > > > > > "...following in the footsteps of ATI, who can make a video card,

just > > > not the drivers to run the damn thing." > > > > Then how exactly are the following ATI's footsteps? They may havemade a > > marketing mistake but they are nowhere near ATI when it comes todriver > > support. > > Umm not really, 3dfx's current troubles were brought about by troubledand > late video card development, dated and costly chipsets and poorlydirected > R&D. > > Marketing wise 3dfx has done quite well considering the late deliver of > their past 3 video card releases, the problem plauged recall with the > Voodoo5 launch, and 6 months later finally releasing the lacklusterVoodoo4. > >

No problems with my ATI vid card with all my games. "Judge" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> Although the V5 is a good card, its not nearly as good as the current > king of price point video cards - the Creative Labs Annilihator MX. > Its going for $129 retail, and as low as $120 on the web. > > I have been a 3dfx man since the vooodoo 1, but it looks like they are > out to pasture, following in the footsteps of ATI, who can make a > video card, just not drivers to run the damn thing. > > Judge > > ======================================== > > > On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:50:44 GMT, "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Copied these posts off 3dfx.products.voodoo5 > > > >staples.com pricematches. I just called and ordered the 5500. Got them

to > >pricematch onvia.com to $177.60 ( > >http://www.onvia.com/usa/products/index.cfm?Task=ViewProduct&SearchText=3dfx

Quoted text (17 lines)

> >&IdCatalog=2502983 ). Then used the $40 off $150 coupon (#90585 exp. > >nov.30). > >http://www.techbargains.com/coupons.cfm > > > >177.60 > >- 40.00 > >+ 9.63 (tax) > >free shipping > >----------- > >$147.23 > > > > > >rms > >[email hidden] > > > > >

Drivers? Mine seem ok...hows the FSAA on the G-MX? dave henrie "Judge" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> Although the V5 is a good card, its not nearly as good as the current > king of price point video cards - the Creative Labs Annilihator MX. > Its going for $129 retail, and as low as $120 on the web. > > I have been a 3dfx man since the vooodoo 1, but it looks like they are > out to pasture, following in the footsteps of ATI, who can make a > video card, just not drivers to run the damn thing. > > Judge > > ======================================== > > > On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:50:44 GMT, "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Copied these posts off 3dfx.products.voodoo5 > > > >staples.com pricematches. I just called and ordered the 5500. Got them

to > >pricematch onvia.com to $177.60 ( > >http://www.onvia.com/usa/products/index.cfm?Task=ViewProduct&SearchText=3dfx

Quoted text (17 lines)

> >&IdCatalog=2502983 ). Then used the $40 off $150 coupon (#90585 exp. > >nov.30). > >http://www.techbargains.com/coupons.cfm > > > >177.60 > >- 40.00 > >+ 9.63 (tax) > >free shipping > >----------- > >$147.23 > > > > > >rms > >[email hidden] > > > > >

I guess I must be lucky with my ATI products. I haven't any problems in 4 years. "Judge" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> ATI is notorious for either terrible drivers, or not producing a > suitable driver all together. This has held them back for years. > > Its pretty common knowledge in the computer hardware industry. Check > any hardware site such as anandtech.com. Its not a new thing, its been > standard practice with them for most of the last 5-7 years. > > Looks like the final shootout will be ATI and nVidia. Who'd a thunk > it! > > Judge > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 18:43:19 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 13:53:24 -0500, Judge <[email hidden]>

wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > >>I have been a 3dfx man since the vooodoo 1, but it looks like they are > >>out to pasture, following in the footsteps of ATI, who can make a > >>video card, just not drivers to run the damn thing. > > > >Huh? >

Dave Henrie wrote: > > Drivers? Mine seem ok...hows the FSAA on the G-MX? That's mean...... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 03:03:56 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Drivers? Mine seem ok...hows the FSAA on the G-MX? >dave henrie Does FSAA make it go faster then? Like 'go faster' stripes?

On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:34:49 +0000, Beren <[email hidden]> wrote: >Does FSAA make it go faster then? Like 'go faster' stripes? >Whatever card you run it on, FSAA slows it down, it just makes it look prettier by lessening the pixellisation on the screen. Andrew.

"rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 13:53:24 -0500, Judge <[email hidden]>wrote: > > >I have been a 3dfx man since the vooodoo 1, but it looks like they are > >out to pasture, following in the footsteps of ATI, who can make a > >video card, just not drivers to run the damn thing. > > Huh? I second that, Huh? 3Dfx has the most stable drivers there are, bar none. WTF is he talking about?

"Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jGxS5.672326$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Huh? Those are the absolute facts. Where am I biased? > > 3dfx was late in delivers. > > The Voodoo5 was recalled at its release and cost the company money. > > The Voodoo4 displays the true weakness and dated architecture of the

VSA-100 > since 3dfx releases it 6 months after it would have been competitiveagainst > a single GPU nVidia based card. The damn thing isn't of any speed > improvement over the Voodoo3 3000, and it's too weak to make use of the > hardware based FSAA that we're all so fond of. The price of this thing > averages 25% more than the far better performing GTS MX. > > Again, who's biased here? I'm simply re-telling the facts. Alright. Now I have to chip in here. I have a V4, and it is significantly faster than the V3 - I had that too. And I use 2xFSAA in nearly all of my games, including F4, and the only one I don't use it in is JFA-18. That's only because that sim is hurting for frame rates to begin with. I have a P3 at 840 btw. DavidB

Genuine, high-end FSAA is STILL not properly implemented in anyone's chip designs. The performance hit with FSAA activated at 800x600 on one of the 5500s is substantial and even worse on the competitions' products. I have seen FSAA running on some GHz machines in various foms of software and was truly not very impressed. When we have the horsepower to run FSAA at 1024x768 and above with full framerates, I might drop the coin on a board like the next Voodoo. I'm not sure we will see that kind of power from 3Dfx in the end. Their market share is dwindling, their earnings have fallen short (I believe) three quarters in a row and they are getting out of the card manufacturing business in hopes of recovering some momentum. We'll see how it turns out, but if FSAA is all they've got, they're hanging their hopes on a pretty flimsy tree branch. In article <[email hidden]>, "elh4jj" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Keystone, you make an argument like an old lady: flatly deny something > that's obviously correct, then go off in a completely differentdirection > with complete conviction that what you're saying makes some logicalsense. > It doesn't. 3dfx have always had strong driver support. Period. Youcan't > change that. > > Now, if you want to talk about poorly directed R&D, I would argue that > you're wrong. Without 3dfx's implementation of FSAA (read: latesttangible

Quoted text (13 lines)

> results of their R&D $) is the best there is at the moment. > > "Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:gHlS5.668241$[email hidden]... > > > > "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:OCjS5.6154$[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Todd Walker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > He is talking about ATI, not 3Dfx. > > > > > > > > "...following in the footsteps of ATI, who can make a video

card,

Quoted text (10 lines)

> just > > > > not the drivers to run the damn thing." > > > > > > Then how exactly are the following ATI's footsteps? They may have > made a > > > marketing mistake but they are nowhere near ATI when it comes to > driver > > > support. > > > > Umm not really, 3dfx's current troubles were brought about by

troubled > and > > late video card development, dated and costly chipsets and poorly > directed > > R&D. > > > > Marketing wise 3dfx has done quite well considering the latedeliver of > > their past 3 video card releases, the problem plauged recall withthe > > Voodoo5 launch, and 6 months later finally releasing the lackluster > Voodoo4. > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Genuine, high-end FSAA is STILL not properly implemented in anyone's chip designs. The performance hit with FSAA activated at 800x600 on one of the 5500s is substantial and even worse on the competitions' products. I have seen FSAA running on some GHz machines in various foms of software and was truly not very impressed. When we have the horsepower to run FSAA at 1024x768 and above with full framerates, I might drop the coin on a board like the next Voodoo. I'm not sure we will see that kind of power from 3Dfx in the end. Their market share is dwindling, their earnings have fallen short (I believe) three quarters in a row and they are getting out of the card manufacturing business in hopes of recovering some momentum. We'll see how it turns out, but if FSAA is all they've got, they're hanging their hopes on a pretty flimsy tree branch. In article <[email hidden]>, "elh4jj" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Keystone, you make an argument like an old lady: flatly deny something > that's obviously correct, then go off in a completely differentdirection > with complete conviction that what you're saying makes some logicalsense. > It doesn't. 3dfx have always had strong driver support. Period. Youcan't > change that. > > Now, if you want to talk about poorly directed R&D, I would argue that > you're wrong. Without 3dfx's implementation of FSAA (read: latesttangible

Quoted text (13 lines)

> results of their R&D $) is the best there is at the moment. > > "Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:gHlS5.668241$[email hidden]... > > > > "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:OCjS5.6154$[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Todd Walker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > He is talking about ATI, not 3Dfx. > > > > > > > > "...following in the footsteps of ATI, who can make a video

card,

Quoted text (10 lines)

> just > > > > not the drivers to run the damn thing." > > > > > > Then how exactly are the following ATI's footsteps? They may have > made a > > > marketing mistake but they are nowhere near ATI when it comes to > driver > > > support. > > > > Umm not really, 3dfx's current troubles were brought about by

troubled > and > > late video card development, dated and costly chipsets and poorly > directed > > R&D. > > > > Marketing wise 3dfx has done quite well considering the latedeliver of > > their past 3 video card releases, the problem plauged recall withthe > > Voodoo5 launch, and 6 months later finally releasing the lackluster > Voodoo4. > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

"Todd Walker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > He is talking about ATI, not 3Dfx. > > "...following in the footsteps of ATI, who can make a video card, just > not the drivers to run the damn thing." Then how exactly are the following ATI's footsteps? They may have made a marketing mistake but they are nowhere near ATI when it comes to driver support.

"rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Then, if 3dfx has good drivers, (which they always have had) > then he is mistakenly comparing the ATI's historically poor > drivers, with the 3dfx ones. > > Summary: He's full o' shit. FACT: 3dfx still have rather poor and under-developed OpenGL drivers. You need to get a clue. Heh.

"Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:OCjS5.6154$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > "Todd Walker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > He is talking about ATI, not 3Dfx. > > > > "...following in the footsteps of ATI, who can make a video card, just > > not the drivers to run the damn thing." > > Then how exactly are the following ATI's footsteps? They may have made a > marketing mistake but they are nowhere near ATI when it comes to driver > support.

Umm not really, 3dfx's current troubles were brought about by troubled and late video card development, dated and costly chipsets and poorly directed R&D. Marketing wise 3dfx has done quite well considering the late deliver of their past 3 video card releases, the problem plauged recall with the Voodoo5 launch, and 6 months later finally releasing the lackluster Voodoo4.

Fact: open gl driver quality has never affected my ability to play over 100 games the last several years. ;-) Fact: incredible driver reliability has allowed me to flawlessly play all games purchased the last 4 years while owning a V2, V3 and now V5. -- Joe Marques "Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DClS5.668212$[email hidden]... > > "rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Then, if 3dfx has good drivers, (which they always have had) > > then he is mistakenly comparing the ATI's historically poor > > drivers, with the 3dfx ones. > > > > Summary: He's full o' shit. > > > FACT: 3dfx still have rather poor and under-developed OpenGL drivers. > > You need to get a clue. Heh. > >

Judge <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Although the V5 is a good card, its not nearly as good as the current > king of price point video cards - the Creative Labs Annilihator MX. The Creative MX is a card with slower DDr RAM > Its going for $129 retail, and as low as $120 on the web. that's only $20 cheaper than a 5500. The 5500 is far, far superior, more than $20 superior.

Keystone <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DClS5.668212$[email hidden]... > > FACT: 3dfx still have rather poor and under-developed OpenGL drivers. agreed, but they are improving. How many racing sims are OGL? just outta curiosity.

This is all in your unbiased opinion eh...? PAPA DOC > >Marketing wise 3dfx has done quite well considering the late deliver of >their past 3 video card releases, the problem plauged recall with the >Voodoo5 launch, and 6 months later finally releasing the lackluster Voodoo4. > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

FACT: You are full of crap...since their OpenGl drivers are terrific for playing games. What else is there...??? PAPA DOC PS FACT: Nvidia drivers have loads of problems as well. > >FACT: 3dfx still have rather poor and under-developed OpenGL drivers. > >You need to get a clue. Heh. > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a1a9608.2580324@news... > FACT: You are full of crap...since their OpenGl drivers are terrific > for playing games. What else is there...??? That's 'MiniGL' Papa, not OpenGL. 3dfx has even been behind Matrox for decent OpenGL drivers. We were talking about driver support and this is one crucial area where 3dfx has truly lagged behind nVidia.

"elh4jj" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Keystone, you make an argument like an old lady: flatly deny something > that's obviously correct, then go off in a completely different direction > with complete conviction that what you're saying makes some logical sense. > It doesn't. 3dfx have always had strong driver support. Period. You can't > change that. > > Now, if you want to talk about poorly directed R&D, I would argue that > you're wrong. Without 3dfx's implementation of FSAA (read: latest tangible > results of their R&D $) is the best there is at the moment.

Uh, not a very wise use of resources. To barely compete now 3dfx must use an expensive video card design of TWO GPU to even compete against nVidia's prior two releases. This is expensive and cost the company money. You're simple ignoring the facts that 3dfx faced last year. Clearly their marketing hasn't truly suffered since people such as you are missing out on their true failings and still view them as a success. I made a rather excellent argument as to where 3dfx has failed.

Huh? Those are the absolute facts. Where am I biased? 3dfx was late in delivers. The Voodoo5 was recalled at its release and cost the company money. The Voodoo4 displays the true weakness and dated architecture of the VSA-100 since 3dfx releases it 6 months after it would have been competitive against a single GPU nVidia based card. The damn thing isn't of any speed improvement over the Voodoo3 3000, and it's too weak to make use of the hardware based FSAA that we're all so fond of. The price of this thing averages 25% more than the far better performing GTS MX. Again, who's biased here? I'm simply re-telling the facts. "Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a1a1914.8963783@news...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> This is all in your unbiased opinion eh...? > > PAPA DOC > > > > >Marketing wise 3dfx has done quite well considering the late deliver of > >their past 3 video card releases, the problem plauged recall with the > >Voodoo5 launch, and 6 months later finally releasing the lackluster

Voodoo4.

Wrong bucko...hey I thought you had a Voodoo 5...? If you did you would know that it doesnt use a Mini GL. The point remains though that for a gameplayer and we are talking about gameplayers here since anyone that produces 3d Graphics requirements are a whole nother ball of wax. For the gameplayer the totality of driver support for the Voodoo series of cards far out does the drivers released for the Nvidia line of cards. But I will hand it to Nvidia they are wonderful about getting new driver releases to their beta testers. The drivers for my Voodoo 5 worked right out of the box with 95% of the software, and all of the advertised features (FSAA) worked with that set of drivers. The Creative 32mb Geforce 2 on the other hand did NOT work out of the box and it also needed to have drivers downloaded to have the features advertised on the box work to a degree. And it wasnt until 3 driver revisions later that full functionality to FSAA ( a Feature advertised on the box) was working. PAPA DOC > >That's 'MiniGL' Papa, not OpenGL. 3dfx has even been behind Matrox for >decent OpenGL drivers. We were talking about driver support and this is one >crucial area where 3dfx has truly lagged behind nVidia. > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

Well wrong again...sheesh. > >Uh, not a very wise use of resources. To barely compete now 3dfx must use >an expensive video card design of TWO GPU to even compete against nVidia's >prior two releases. This is expensive and cost the company money. The two chip design is superior in terms of bandwidth...bandwidth is what its all about. The Geforce 2 Ultra finally was able to get the clock speed up to a degree where the penalty for enabling advertised features didnt kill its speed altogether. This a much more expensive solution than just adding a chip.... > >You're simple ignoring the facts that 3dfx faced last year. Clearly their >marketing hasn't truly suffered since people such as you are missing out on >their true failings and still view them as a success. > >I made a rather excellent argument as to where 3dfx has failed. Nope you didnt...but hey dont let me get in the way of you patting yourself on the back. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

We sent all our Rage Fury Maxx's back and had an entire shipment of Rage Fury Pro's that were defective. I cannot begin to count the number of customers who bring systems in with ATI cards that will not play their games properly. Jeff "Judge" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> ATI is notorious for either terrible drivers, or not producing a > suitable driver all together. This has held them back for years. > > Its pretty common knowledge in the computer hardware industry. Check > any hardware site such as anandtech.com. Its not a new thing, its been > standard practice with them for most of the last 5-7 years. > > Looks like the final shootout will be ATI and nVidia. Who'd a thunk > it! > > Judge > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 18:43:19 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 13:53:24 -0500, Judge <[email hidden]>

wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > >>I have been a 3dfx man since the vooodoo 1, but it looks like they are > >>out to pasture, following in the footsteps of ATI, who can make a > >>video card, just not drivers to run the damn thing. > > > >Huh? >

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

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > The Voodoo4 displays the true weakness and dated architecture of the > VSA-100 > > since 3dfx releases it 6 months after it would have been competitive > against > > a single GPU nVidia based card. The damn thing isn't of any speed > > improvement over the Voodoo3 3000, and it's too weak to make use of the > > hardware based FSAA that we're all so fond of. The price of this thing > > averages 25% more than the far better performing GTS MX. > > > > Again, who's biased here? I'm simply re-telling the facts. > > Alright. Now I have to chip in here. I have a V4, and it is

significantly > faster than the V3 - I had that too. And I use 2xFSAA in nearly all of my > games, including F4, and the only one I don't use it in is JFA-18. That's > only because that sim is hurting for frame rates to begin with. I have aP3 > at 840 btw. Alright, then please explain to me why every single web review that has been made available shows that the Voodoo4 is rarely if ever quicker than a Voodoo3 (both clocked at 166MHz with minimal performance related architecture gains with the VSA-100) upon the same platform and the cheaper nVidia MX cards can consistently trounce either in terms of consistently higher framerates at all resolutions? It's user preference when it comes to playable framerates and that's extremely subjective. You bought a Voodoo4 despite it's rotten reviews, therefore this proves again that marketing has hardly been 3dfx's vice -- it's their true failures of the past year that I've already mentioned that's cost them dearly.

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a1acb20.1193009@news... > Well wrong again...sheesh. > > > > >Uh, not a very wise use of resources. To barely compete now 3dfx mustuse > >an expensive video card design of TWO GPU to even compete againstnVidia's

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >prior two releases. This is expensive and cost the company money. > > The two chip design is superior in terms of bandwidth...bandwidth is > what its all about. The Geforce 2 Ultra finally was able to get the > clock speed up to a degree where the penalty for enabling advertised > features didnt kill its speed altogether. This a much more expensive > solution than just adding a chip....

Pardon me? The true test of bandwidth is the rendering speed of a card at high resolutions and at higher colour depths. By EVERY reviewer and accepted benchmark it is unquestioned that this is where the past three nVidia released chipsets have had their advantage -- nVidia began leading away in speed and bandwith crushing high resolutions with the orginal Geforce, not it's THIRD re-incarnation of the GTS ultra that you're referring to. How can you POSSIBLY argue that it's less expensive for a company to base competative production runs upon a dual processor cards that hold double the practical and necessary memory of its competitors???? Ohh, their casting there magic wands to double the returns of their silicon wafers and memory module delivers... Whoa, talk about illogic or sheer blind bias on your part. > >You're simple ignoring the facts that 3dfx faced last year. Clearlytheir > >marketing hasn't truly suffered since people such as you are missing outon > >their true failings and still view them as a success. > > > >I made a rather excellent argument as to where 3dfx has failed. > > Nope you didnt...but hey dont let me get in the way of you patting > yourself on the back. 3dfx has serious financial difficulty and has faltered behind its competition for many of the reasons I've listed above. This is why that company has chosen to restructure itself into the manner it became a player in the consumer market. Papa, you are being extremely biased here by ignoring the widely known public failings of 3dfx over the past year. I'm not being a zealot by any measure of the definition since I've consistently been presenting widely acknowledged facts. Evidence that has not been questioned nor disproven by you or any others.

Nonsense...keystone you are taking Ultra results and applying them across the board. Yes the Ultra does well by throwing high priced RAM clocked very high to solve the problems that 3dfx solved by going with cheap RAM. And not every reviewer agreed with that assertion. And not every reviewer accepts that the only two benchmarks availible are Quake 3 and 3D-Mark 2000 (which only a vaninshingly small number of reviewers actually know how to use to get results relevent to todays games). Ram is the one of the biggest bits of expense in a video card. Witness the Ultra being 500.00 on release with the same GPU as the much less expensive Geforce 2... PAPA DOC

Quoted text (40 lines)

> >Pardon me? The true test of bandwidth is the rendering speed of a card at >high resolutions and at higher colour depths. By EVERY reviewer and >accepted benchmark it is unquestioned that this is where the past three >nVidia released chipsets have had their advantage -- nVidia began leading >away in speed and bandwith crushing high resolutions with the orginal >Geforce, not it's THIRD re-incarnation of the GTS ultra that you're >referring to. > >How can you POSSIBLY argue that it's less expensive for a company to base >competative production runs upon a dual processor cards that hold double the >practical and necessary memory of its competitors???? Ohh, their casting >there magic wands to double the returns of their silicon wafers and memory >module delivers... Whoa, talk about illogic or sheer blind bias on your >part. > > >> >You're simple ignoring the facts that 3dfx faced last year. Clearly >their >> >marketing hasn't truly suffered since people such as you are missing out >on >> >their true failings and still view them as a success. >> > >> >I made a rather excellent argument as to where 3dfx has failed. >> >> Nope you didnt...but hey dont let me get in the way of you patting >> yourself on the back. > >3dfx has serious financial difficulty and has faltered behind its >competition for many of the reasons I've listed above. This is why that >company has chosen to restructure itself into the manner it became a player >in the consumer market. > >Papa, you are being extremely biased here by ignoring the widely known >public failings of 3dfx over the past year. I'm not being a zealot by any >measure of the definition since I've consistently been presenting widely >acknowledged facts. Evidence that has not been questioned nor disproven by >you or any others. > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a1beac5.29908220@news... > Nonsense...keystone you are taking Ultra results and applying them > across the board. Yes the Ultra does well by throwing high priced RAM > clocked very high to solve the problems that 3dfx solved by going with > cheap RAM. 3dfx hasn't solved these problems. The fact that you're consistenly throwing out is that with the release of the original Geforce nVidia has demonstrated a strong strength for higher bandwidth and performance at higher resolutions and higher colour depth than the dated design of the Voodoo5. > And not every reviewer agreed with that assertion. And not every > reviewer accepts that the only two benchmarks availible are Quake 3 > and 3D-Mark 2000 (which only a vaninshingly small number of reviewers > actually know how to use to get results relevent to todays games). Pardon me? But these remain best benchmarks to test the ability of a video card without being limited to another system resource such as the CPU. If one's discussing measurements of a video card's full performance it's foolish to toss such results out... Yes we play sims, but currently we're discussing the strenghs and weaknesses of video cards and the results these designs have had upon their companies'. > Ram is the one of the biggest bits of expense in a video card. Witness > the Ultra being 500.00 on release with the same GPU as the much less > expensive Geforce 2... Really, that's an interesting admission by a 3dfx zealot. Finally, you admit to the wasteful design of the Voodoo5 with an extra and wasteful 32MB of SDRAM due to its cost inefficient dual GPU, SLI design. This was and is the only way 3dfx is currently capable of remaining competitive while nVidia is outpacing others with quicker back-to-back, higher margin, single GPU releases. 3dfx has wasted money while nVidia is reaping its leaner and better business designs. Clearly you zealots have rose coloured glasses on for IGNORING the very real troubles of 3dfx...

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

Quoted text (21 lines)

> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:25:36 GMT, "Keystone" > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > > >Does it matter if you recognise me or not? Are you calling me a liar? > >Mis-statements? Sorry buddy, but my Voodoo5 does the job for me, but I > >respect the failings that 3dfx have made. If I had the money to choose > >among the available cards and was not limited to older Glide-only (LB2 & > >F-15) then the better card would be that from the competition. > > And if you did have a Geforce2 then you would get to experience the > driver dance of Nvidia cards first hand. Stability and compatibility > is a major buying decision for me and it should be for you too. What's > the use of a more technically efficient card if it can't run *all* of > your games properly? Maybe a Geforce2 Ultra can run 32bit in games > efficiently, but a regular 32mb Geforce2 can't. V5 has a superior > 16bit filter over Nvidia cards. Some games run much better on a V5 in > glide mode than on a Geforce2 in D3D. You weigh your needs and buy the > right card for you. I bought both a Geforce2 and a V5 to make up my > mind. I selected the V5 due to its stability/compatibility and > superior FSAA. You should do the same before flapping your gums.

very very good, and exactly what happened with me in fact, I had a 32MB GTS AND a 64MB'er, overclocked them both, and went with the 5500

Please list the websites you are quoting and we can judge for ourselves their compentancy....? I know that I was disgusted with the sheer incompentent reviews of the Voodoo 5 and decided that at least one person was gonna look at more games then just one...me. And once I had both cards in hand I was amazed at the lack of differences between the two when running 8 games without FSAA....(with FSAA the V5 took a clear lead)... Quake 3 and 3Dmark are unuseful benchmarks when comparing video cards for users because unless you know what you are doing both will take advantage of the GPU of the Nvidia card which will skew the results towards the Nvidia at a time when its not YET important to have a GPU. And this was even more true 6 months ago when there were NO games availible aside from Quake 3. It takes more than throwing up a webpage and running Q3 and 3Dmark to make a review. Stop believing everything you read and do an actual comparison.... PAPA DOC

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >Alright, then please explain to me why every single web review that has been >made available shows that the Voodoo4 is rarely if ever quicker than a >Voodoo3 (both clocked at 166MHz with minimal performance related >architecture gains with the VSA-100) upon the same platform and the cheaper >nVidia MX cards can consistently trounce either in terms of consistently >higher framerates at all resolutions?

Flanker Target GPL Crash Dummy www.papadoc.net FALCON 4 Benchmarks

Solved the problems....umm I dont think Bandwidth is a problem that will be solved...its more like an ongoing goal. And 3dfx achieved their goal alot more elegantly than Nvidia....and with better results. > >3dfx hasn't solved these problems. The fact that you're consistenly >throwing out is that with the release of the original Geforce nVidia has >demonstrated a strong strength for higher bandwidth and performance at >higher resolutions and higher colour depth than the dated design of the >Voodoo5. Not according to the tests I ran....I ran the Voodoo 5 against the Geforce 2 and it was close on absolute speed. Had the same tests been run with a Geforce 1 it would have been no contest...the Voodoo 5 would have wiped the floor with the Nvidia Card.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >> And not every reviewer agreed with that assertion. And not every >> reviewer accepts that the only two benchmarks availible are Quake 3 >> and 3D-Mark 2000 (which only a vaninshingly small number of reviewers >> actually know how to use to get results relevent to todays games). > >Pardon me? But these remain best benchmarks to test the ability of a video >card without being limited to another system resource such as the CPU. If >one's discussing measurements of a video card's full performance it's >foolish to toss such results out... Yes we play sims, but currently we're >discussing the strenghs and weaknesses of video cards and the results these >designs have had upon their companies'.

They were absolutely useless as information when the Voodoo 5 came out since there were NO games aside from Quake 3 that used the GPU of the Nvidia card and yet both benchmarks unless specifically turned off only showed skewed benchmarks of the GPU engine. Even now the number of titles that actually have support for the GPU is vanishingly small...and this is a year after the folks at Nvidia promised that last year was gonna be the year of TnL...all those Geforce 256 users must be pleased as punch to buy into that lie. Its useless to run benchmarks of the Nvidia TnL engine if no one is using it. I would have been much more likely to take a review seriously had they shown Quake 3 marks without the GPU (dont know if thats possible) and most certainly it was possible to turn off the TnL feature of 3dMark 2000 to show how the 2 cards performed against each other in 95 percent of the games. On top of that Nvidia's drivers were NOT delivering the same picture quality in Quake 3 ....only by turning off compression in Q3 would the sky look similar to the Voodoo 5 and yet no one caught that...not even me shamefully. Had that been caught I would be interested in seeing what the benchmarks would have shown.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >> Ram is the one of the biggest bits of expense in a video card. Witness >> the Ultra being 500.00 on release with the same GPU as the much less >> expensive Geforce 2... > >Really, that's an interesting admission by a 3dfx zealot. Finally, you >admit to the wasteful design of the Voodoo5 with an extra and wasteful 32MB >of SDRAM due to its cost inefficient dual GPU, SLI design.

Sheesh all I am doing these days is giving economics classes to people who should know better. I dont know if you were keeping up with current events but the Geforce 2 upon release was more expensive with 32mb than the V5 was with 64mb....and even at V5 release that was still true. The V5 was and is a cheaper more cost effective way to increase bandwidth and speed. PAPA DOC Flanker Target GPL Crash Dummy www.papadoc.net FALCON 4 Benchmarks

"Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Solved the problems....umm I dont think Bandwidth is a problem that > will be solved...its more like an ongoing goal. And 3dfx achieved > their goal alot more elegantly than Nvidia....and with better results. Elegance? Pardon me but I define 3dfx's route as the brute force approach with the profit margins being hampered with a dual GPU design and double the necessary memory that the competitors provide. > Sheesh all I am doing these days is giving economics classes to people > who should know better. I dont know if you were keeping up with > current events but the Geforce 2 upon release was more expensive with > 32mb than the V5 was with 64mb....and even at V5 release that was > still true. The V5 was and is a cheaper more cost effective way to > increase bandwidth and speed. Expensive? Papa, you're in need of an economics class... The GTS Ultra cards are more exepensive and this expense is passed along in the retail price. The higher margin and more cost efficient designs are the benefit to nVidia and its OEMs. At the other end of the class is 3dfx having to restructure its company due to wasteful designs and manufacturing decisions and stutters. 3dfx pricing of their cards is now reflecting what they must do to remain competative. Papa, you're absolutely out to lunch to assume that rather than having a lean and efficient single GPU design that 3dfx makes a greater profit off of a dual GPU, double the necessary memory upon their OWN Voodoo5 cards.

You define...pardon me but the who the hell are you...? (to steal my favorite line). I havent been keeping very good track of your mis-statements but two come to mind...the mini gl and the fact that at one point I believe you were trying to have us believe that you had a V5. > >Elegance? Pardon me but I define 3dfx's route as the brute force approach >with the profit margins being hampered with a dual GPU design and double the >necessary memory that the competitors provide. The main feature of 3dfx was/is FSAA and the increased cheap memory provided both the price point and bandwidth required to achieve that..having two processors is effective for the increased bandwidth. >Expensive? Papa, you're in need of an economics class... The GTS Ultra >cards are more exepensive and this expense is passed along in the retail >price. The higher margin and more cost efficient designs are the benefit to >nVidia and its OEMs. Do you make this stuff up as you go...? The 32mb Geforce 2 was about $300.00 dollars when I purchased mine for the test. This was exactly what the 64mb Voodoo 5's were going for...the 64mb Voodoo shit all over the 32mb Geforce 2's in FSAA quality. Matter of fact right now I am considering writing letters to Rags like PC Gamer and Computer Gaming World to ask them to please start only showing screenshots with FSAA on even if its the inferior Geforce version because those jaggies hurt my eyes. > >At the other end of the class is 3dfx having to restructure its company due >to wasteful designs and manufacturing decisions and stutters. What a load of crap...they suffered from making a bad decision about making their own cards, the designs were/are awesome. Making their own cards diverted them from their core brilliance of making awesome chipsets. The Voodoo 5 is an awesome chipset that came out late because they got bogged down trying to be everything. >3dfx pricing >of their cards is now reflecting what they must do to remain competative. >Papa, you're absolutely out to lunch to assume that rather than having a >lean and efficient single GPU design that 3dfx makes a greater profit off of >a dual GPU, double the necessary memory upon their OWN Voodoo5 cards. You truly dont understand what you are talking about. The 64mb of memory for the V5 was required to achieve what they wanted in regards to FSAA x4. Nvidia completely underestimated the reception that FSAA would have and so only released a card that was half as capable in FSAA. But even at that the Geforce 2 cost the same as the Voodoo5 that had twice the memory. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand wrote: > Sheesh all I am doing these days is giving economics classes to people who should know better. Doin' a helluva job, too! > The V5 was and is a cheaper more cost effective way to increase bandwidth and speed. Ya sold me! Ordered mine yesterday! Hey! Happy Thanksgiving PD!!! Annex aka DrOK

On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 07:19:03 GMT, [email hidden] (Pierre Legrand) thus spoke:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>You truly dont understand what you are talking about. The 64mb of >memory for the V5 was required to achieve what they wanted in regards >to FSAA x4. Nvidia completely underestimated the reception that FSAA >would have and so only released a card that was half as capable in >FSAA. But even at that the Geforce 2 cost the same as the Voodoo5 that >had twice the memory. > >PAPA DOC

Good to see *someone* is still fighting the good fight. :-)

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a1cc170.28314404@news...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> You define...pardon me but the who the hell are you...? (to steal my > favorite line). I havent been keeping very good track of your > mis-statements but two come to mind...the mini gl and the fact that at > one point I believe you were trying to have us believe that you had a > V5. > > > > >Elegance? Pardon me but I define 3dfx's route as the brute force

approach > >with the profit margins being hampered with a dual GPU design and doublethe

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >necessary memory that the competitors provide. > > The main feature of 3dfx was/is FSAA and the increased cheap memory > provided both the price point and bandwidth required to achieve > that..having two processors is effective for the increased bandwidth. > > >Expensive? Papa, you're in need of an economics class... The GTS Ultra > >cards are more exepensive and this expense is passed along in the retail > >price. The higher margin and more cost efficient designs are the benefit

to > >nVidia and its OEMs. > > Do you make this stuff up as you go...? The 32mb Geforce 2 was about > $300.00 dollars when I purchased mine for the test. This was exactly > what the 64mb Voodoo 5's were going for...the 64mb Voodoo shit all > over the 32mb Geforce 2's in FSAA quality. This is ALL that a VSA-100 chipset has to offer over the competition. When it comes to straight out fill-rate, and faster rendering/framerates at higher resolutions and higher colour depth even the first Geforce proved which was the superior design. > Gaming World to ask them to please start only showing screenshots with > FSAA on even if its the inferior Geforce version because those jaggies > hurt my eyes. FSAA is nice, but the trade-off of having to tone tone one's playable resolution and usually disable 32-bit rendering DOES not help sell video cards. 3dfx's dated design is hurting them. > >At the other end of the class is 3dfx having to restructure its companydue

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >to wasteful designs and manufacturing decisions and stutters. > > What a load of crap...they suffered from making a bad decision about > making their own cards, the designs were/are awesome. Making their own > cards diverted them from their core brilliance of making awesome > chipsets. The Voodoo 5 is an awesome chipset that came out late > because they got bogged down trying to be everything.

Every news release about 3dfx over the past few weeks is a "load of crap"???? When will it reach through your head that a DUAL GPU design and double the necessary RAM is NOT cost efficient. The Voodoo5 IS NOT a chipset...the Voodoo5 uses two VSA-100 chipsets. For its price this is a relatively weak chipset as every Voodoo4 review is showing in terms of the direct competition to the cheaper GTS MX cards. > You truly dont understand what you are talking about. The 64mb of > memory for the V5 was required to achieve what they wanted in regards > to FSAA x4. Nvidia completely underestimated the reception that FSAA > would have and so only released a card that was half as capable in > FSAA. But even at that the Geforce 2 cost the same as the Voodoo5 that > had twice the memory. Wrong. The 64MB of memory on the Voodoo5 simply exists due to its SLI configuration. In practical purposes the card only as 32MB of memory in the identical manner as ATi's Rage MAXX.

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a1cc170.28314404@news... > You define...pardon me but the who the hell are you...? (to steal my > favorite line). I havent been keeping very good track of your > mis-statements but two come to mind...the mini gl and the fact that at > one point I believe you were trying to have us believe that you had a > V5. Does it matter if you recognise me or not? Are you calling me a liar? Mis-statements? Sorry buddy, but my Voodoo5 does the job for me, but I respect the failings that 3dfx have made. If I had the money to choose among the available cards and was not limited to older Glide-only (LB2 & F-15) then the better card would be that from the competition. Damn, Papa, you're the one who's truly confused as to the design of this card by believing it has double the practical memory than its 32MB equipped competition. SLI is a wasteful design method, one that decreases profit if the channel selling profit margin MUST be decreased to simply remain competitive with the leaner competition. This is no longer the days of the Voodoo2 when 3dfx was truly the leader and had the ability to sell its chipsets to multiple OEMs for a decent profit.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:25:36 GMT, "Keystone" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Does it matter if you recognise me or not? Are you calling me a liar? >Mis-statements? Sorry buddy, but my Voodoo5 does the job for me, but I >respect the failings that 3dfx have made. If I had the money to choose >among the available cards and was not limited to older Glide-only (LB2 & >F-15) then the better card would be that from the competition. And if you did have a Geforce2 then you would get to experience the driver dance of Nvidia cards first hand. Stability and compatibility is a major buying decision for me and it should be for you too. What's the use of a more technically efficient card if it can't run *all* of your games properly? Maybe a Geforce2 Ultra can run 32bit in games efficiently, but a regular 32mb Geforce2 can't. V5 has a superior 16bit filter over Nvidia cards. Some games run much better on a V5 in glide mode than on a Geforce2 in D3D. You weigh your needs and buy the right card for you. I bought both a Geforce2 and a V5 to make up my mind. I selected the V5 due to its stability/compatibility and superior FSAA. You should do the same before flapping your gums.

No it is not ALL they had to offer....they also offered a tremendous amount of speed. You keep trying to act as if the Geforce was SO much faster than the Voodoo 5 and it just isnt so. And on top of that FSAA is alot to offer over another chipset....witness the mad scrambling of Nvidia to get it working properly in their chipset.

Quoted text (12 lines)

>This is ALL that a VSA-100 chipset has to offer over the competition. When >it comes to straight out fill-rate, and faster rendering/framerates at >higher resolutions and higher colour depth even the first Geforce proved >which was the superior design. > >> Gaming World to ask them to please start only showing screenshots with >> FSAA on even if its the inferior Geforce version because those jaggies >> hurt my eyes. > >FSAA is nice, but the trade-off of having to tone tone one's playable >resolution and usually disable 32-bit rendering DOES not help sell video >cards. 3dfx's dated design is hurting them.

And yes enabling that does have an effect on the Framerates...but it has about the same effect as enabling 32bit does on the Geforce without FSAA. Furthermore when enabling 32bit on the Geforce on Flanker 2 the card lost 4 frames a second to the Voodoo 5 not losing any frames a second. Where is your superior architecture...? Then enabling FSAA really throws the Geforce into the shitter. You really need to do some thinking on your own instead of just believing everthing you read....especially since most websites these days are run by crack heads whose only goal is banner hits...so they can stay home all day and play Q3.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> >> What a load of crap...they suffered from making a bad decision about >> making their own cards, the designs were/are awesome. Making their own >> cards diverted them from their core brilliance of making awesome >> chipsets. The Voodoo 5 is an awesome chipset that came out late >> because they got bogged down trying to be everything. > >Every news release about 3dfx over the past few weeks is a "load of >crap"???? When will it reach through your head that a DUAL GPU design and >double the necessary RAM is NOT cost efficient.

No your interpretation of every news release released over the last two weeks is a load of crap. Subtle difference but a difference nonetheless....<VBG> You may at your leisure point out where anyone from 3dfx says that DUAL GPU is wasteful...and as far as getting it thru your head you need to understand that 64mb was REQUIRED to do the type of FSAA they wanted to do at the speed they needed. > >The Voodoo5 IS NOT a chipset...the Voodoo5 uses two VSA-100 chipsets. For >its price this is a relatively weak chipset as every Voodoo4 review is >showing in terms of the direct competition to the cheaper GTS MX cards. And if the reviews were done to the same "high" standards of nearly every review I read about the Voodoo 5 then they are all worth about the same...zilch. The worthless shit masquerading as effort on 99% of the "websites" is what motivated me to do my own review.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >> You truly dont understand what you are talking about. The 64mb of >> memory for the V5 was required to achieve what they wanted in regards >> to FSAA x4. Nvidia completely underestimated the reception that FSAA >> would have and so only released a card that was half as capable in >> FSAA. But even at that the Geforce 2 cost the same as the Voodoo5 that >> had twice the memory. > >Wrong. The 64MB of memory on the Voodoo5 simply exists due to its SLI >configuration. In practical purposes the card only as 32MB of memory in the >identical manner as ATi's Rage MAXX.

You can at your leisure quote anyone who supports this point of view...preferably someone responsible for the design of the chip. This will leave out such dubious pundits as Anand/Tom. The fact of the matter is this type of design neatly sidestepped all the memory/gpu bandwith problems that affected the Geforce. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

Happy Thanksgiving and thanks for all the history lessons. Reminds me to always be reading...something thats easy to get behind on when you have a little one. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >Ya sold me! Ordered mine yesterday! > >Hey! Happy Thanksgiving PD!!! > >Annex > >aka > >DrOK

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

Well you know its just so fun....<VBG> Besides heathens can only prevail if we roll over and give up...hehe. PAPA DOC >Good to see *someone* is still fighting the good fight. :-) > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

"Amp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:25:36 GMT, "Keystone" > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > >snip<. I bought both a Geforce2 and a V5 to make up my > mind. I selected the V5 due to its stability/compatibility and > superior FSAA. Bingo. I also bought both and did not see a *huge* increase in framerate with the GeForce 2 (Hercules GTS), plus I had the additional headaches with games that would *not* run with the Geforce (GPL was the worst... it, and other *older* games look great with FSAA). I simply found it very difficult to justify spending $375 for a video card that did not deliver results that were significantly better than a $150 V5. For an additional $100 I got another 128k of PC133 ram... and it was still cheaper than the Geforce.

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

Quoted text (18 lines)

> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:25:36 GMT, "Keystone" > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > > >Does it matter if you recognise me or not? Are you calling me a liar? > >Mis-statements? Sorry buddy, but my Voodoo5 does the job for me, but I > >respect the failings that 3dfx have made. If I had the money to choose > >among the available cards and was not limited to older Glide-only (LB2 & > >F-15) then the better card would be that from the competition. > > And if you did have a Geforce2 then you would get to experience the > driver dance of Nvidia cards first hand. Stability and compatibility > is a major buying decision for me and it should be for you too. What's > the use of a more technically efficient card if it can't run *all* of > your games properly? Maybe a Geforce2 Ultra can run 32bit in games > efficiently, but a regular 32mb Geforce2 can't. V5 has a superior > 16bit filter over Nvidia cards. Some games run much better on a V5 in > glide mode than on a Geforce2 in D3D.

I totally agree and have never disagreed with any of this. -- Especially in terms of profit an SLI configuration is a more costly speed related solution if the competition can provide a single chipset that can match or exceed this performance. -- SLI creates the necessity of DOUBLE the necessary memory available for a single chip solution -- 3dfx recalled the Voodoo5 immediately at its release and this cost them money and further delayed its release. -- The Voodoo4 was released 6 months after an expected date and once to market it averages 20% above the price of an MX based card, yet providing a less powerful solution and little performance benefit over the Voodoo3 2000/3000 that it has directly replaced. -- 3dfx wasted millions of potential R&D funds upon a foolish and lacklustre attempt to manufacture its own video cards. -- 3dfx has fallen behind nVidia's available yields, cheaper product technology, amazing ~6 month product cycle. -- 3dfx has found that to survive it MUST restructure its company BACK into the same format that had provide success a few years ago. This sets the company even further behind its competition. These are my arguments and criticisms against 3dfx. Unless one complains nothing improves and the spectre of nVidia having a near monopoly should please no one, even the die-hard nVidia zealots...

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a1d3bb7.28509856@news... > You may at your leisure point out where anyone > from 3dfx says that DUAL GPU is wasteful...and as far as getting it > thru your head you need to understand that 64mb was REQUIRED to do the > type of FSAA they wanted to do at the speed they needed. Hmm, don't you mean SLI and its required doubling of the base memory (for each chip) was "required to do the type of FSAA they wanted to do at the speed they needed?" Hmmm, that sounds like more like a brute force approach if I ever heard one. Hardly the elegant solution of designing a single chipset that can handle higher fillrates, and faster framerights at higher resolutions. damn....repetition isn't so grand. Here are some fairly basic facts: -- To manufacture double the amount of chipsets costs more than to fabricate half. -- It can be more profitable to spend the same amount to manufacture this number of chipsets, and only use a single chipset per similarly priced video card. -- Double the memory costs more than half. -- 3dfx profits are hurting. -- 3dfx as a company is struggling and they have fallen behind the competition.

Hmmmm...??? WTF is that..you trying to sound ever so smart...? Hmmm this...you dont get it and I expect that you wont ever get it. You have just enough knowledge to be a danger to yourself. FSAA is a big deal, Dual Chips solved bandwidth problems and allowed them to scale their chipset and do x4 FSAA efficiently.... > >Hmm, don't you mean SLI and its required doubling of the base memory (for >each chip) was "required to do the type of FSAA they wanted to do at the >speed they needed?" Yes and so what...? Are you starting to get it...? > >Hmmm, that sounds like more like a brute force approach if I ever heard one. >Hardly the elegant solution of designing a single chipset that can handle >higher fillrates, and faster framerights at higher resolutions. >damn....repetition isn't so grand. First of all you are no expert on whats elegant. As a user it makes no difference to me what they have inside the card to make it run....this isnt some techno dweebish beauty pagent...its a video card. They could put a fucking RaT inside and if it did FSAA as quickly and beautifully as the Voodoo 5 I would buy it and sing its praises to high heaven. You techno dweebs get all excited about Nvidia press releases saying how brilliant they are for only having one chip as if that indicates anything... It doesnt. It means nothing to be "elegant" if it means not having all the features I have.... Again you are trying to imply that the Geforce 2 is much faster than the V5 and that just isnt true. But Im glad that you are following the pack (webzine/MagRag) and are just repeating something until you believe it. Again the V5 loses less frames a second when using 32bit Color in Flanker than the Geforce 2....thats a FACT. Wanna know how I make my facts..? I test them myself instead of being some pack follower parroting the bullshit line of a bunch of bullshit sites. >Here are some fairly basic facts: > You wouldnt know a basic fact if it came up to you and slapped you around like a red haired step child. >-- To manufacture double the amount of chipsets costs more than to fabricate >half. FACT: The Geforce 2 with 1/2 the Ram cost more at release than the V5 with twice the ram did at release. Ooopsy for your fact... > >-- It can be more profitable to spend the same amount to manufacture this >number of chipsets, and only use a single chipset per similarly priced video >card. Oopsy the 64mb Geforce was more expensive than the 64mb Voodoo 5....This was at a time where Nvidia would have liked nothing more than to finally drive a fucking stake thru 3dfx's heart by stealing away market share. Now the Ultra is $500.00 you see a trend here? To match the bandwidth peformance of the Voodoo 5 and to get the most out of their card they were driven to the most expensive DDR ram clocked to ridiculous speeds. >-- Double the memory costs more than half. It depends on what kind of memory you are talking about....apparently on the Geforce 2 32mb half the memory cost the same since the cards ended up being the same cost. > >-- 3dfx profits are hurting. Yipee you finally got something right. Yup the profits are hurting...but thats not due to card design...thats due to not executing and getting the card out when it should have been released. Had the card been released when the Geforce 1 was released it would have been a turkey shoot with the Nvidia card being the Gobbler..(my Turkey day Pun). As it is the V5 competed with the Geforce 2 and did extremely well....they lost alot of mindshare not because of a bad design but irresponsible journalism on the part of poorly run/written reviews by a bunch of punks who wouldnt know an original thought if it burst out of their heads and puked in their cereal. But I have to admire the spin control of Nvidia....when it looked like FSAA was starting to really come on they got their mouth pieces out their and strongarmed a few sites and sweet talked a bunch more and all of a sudden all this people are doing stupid shit like Anands bullshit FSAA comparison. > >-- 3dfx as a company is struggling and they have fallen behind the >competition. Life is a struggle....if you believe that Nvidia isnt struggling or that ATI isnt struggling then you havent been around long enough. Everyone better be struggling cause who ever sits back on their hands and says they are good enough dies. 3dfx came shockingly close to dying....that is no doubt. They may still change into something else but it wont be because of poor design...it will have been because of poor execution and since everyone from the janitor to the CEO understands that I believe that executiong will be a much smaller problem. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

Pierre Legrand <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a1deeaf.74332228@news... > >-- To manufacture double the amount of chipsets costs more than tofabricate > >half. > > FACT: The Geforce 2 with 1/2 the Ram cost more at release than the V5 > with twice the ram did at release. Ooopsy for your fact... agreed. and that is the point. nVidia sold the chips to Creative/Elsa/Guillemot, etc. and those companies CHARGED that much, and got that much. nVidia certainly didn't NEED to charge that much. they chose to because the market could bear it. Also, DDr is more expneisve than SDR, but guess what? 3dfx had to buy the SDR to put on their boards. nVidia didn't have to pay a single red cent for the 32MB of RAM on the Creative GTS2 cards. Creative paid for that. > >-- It can be more profitable to spend the same amount to manufacture this > >number of chipsets, and only use a single chipset per similarly pricedvideo

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >card. > > Oopsy the 64mb Geforce was more expensive than the 64mb Voodoo > 5....This was at a time where Nvidia would have liked nothing more > than to finally drive a fucking stake thru 3dfx's heart by stealing > away market share. Now the Ultra is $500.00 you see a trend here? To > match the bandwidth peformance of the Voodoo 5 and to get the most out > of their card they were driven to the most expensive DDR ram clocked > to ridiculous speeds.

agreed, but you're TOTALLY missing the point NVIDIA DOESN'T BUY THE RAM. They only manufacture the chips. and although a GeF2 chip costs more tha a VSA100, it DOESN'T cost more than 2 by a longshot (.18u vs. .25u) > >-- Double the memory costs more than half. > > It depends on what kind of memory you are talking about....apparently > on the Geforce 2 32mb half the memory cost the same since the cards > ended up being the same cost. no. You're mistaking what the manufacturers charged vs. what they had to pay. They charged $300. They paid nothing near that. People bought it @ $300. Once the 5500 came out, the GTS 32MB cards IMMEDIATELY dropped by $50. > > > >-- 3dfx profits are hurting. > > Yipee you finally got something right. Yup the profits are > hurting...but thats not due to card design... actually, yes it is. The 4500 sucks. It's slow. the MX trounces it in the feature department where OEM's like to tread, and THAT IS WHERE THE $$$ ARE BRO!!!!1 I love my 5500, but "efficiency" isn't something I'd use to describe it. >thats due to not > executing and getting the card out when it should have been released. > Had the card been released when the Geforce 1 was released it would > have been a turkey shoot with the Nvidia card being the Gobbler..(my > Turkey day Pun). agreed 100% shoulda/woulda/coulda B-/ > As it is the V5 competed with the Geforce 2 and did > extremely well....they lost alot of mindshare not because of a bad > design but irresponsible journalism on the part of poorly run/written > reviews by a bunch of punks who wouldnt know an original thought if it > burst out of their heads and puked in their cereal. I can agree with that part tho. > But I have to admire the spin control of Nvidia....when it looked like > FSAA was starting to really come on they got their mouth pieces out > their and strongarmed a few sites and sweet talked a bunch more and > all of a sudden all this people are doing stupid shit like Anands > bullshit FSAA comparison. believe me. 3dfx would be MUCH MUCH better off if they followed nvidia's business plan/model and had their PR/marketing. I don't particularly like it, but it sure as hell is effective. > >-- 3dfx as a company is struggling and they have fallen behind the > >competition. > > Life is a struggle....if you believe that Nvidia isnt struggling or > that ATI isnt struggling then you havent been around long enough. nvidia isn't now. they certainly were.

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a1deeaf.74332228@news... > >-- To manufacture double the amount of chipsets costs more than tofabricate

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >half. > > FACT: The Geforce 2 with 1/2 the Ram cost more at release than the V5 > with twice the ram did at release. Ooopsy for your fact... > > > > >-- It can be more profitable to spend the same amount to manufacture this > >number of chipsets, and only use a single chipset per similarly priced

video > >card. > > Oopsy the 64mb Geforce was more expensive than the 64mb Voodoo > 5.... Papa, please go back to a few more economic lessons... I'm clearly talking about the cost to the MANUFACTURER and not the consumer. An SLI configured card is MORE expensive to manufacture than a single ship solution. Profit margin is especially lost if this SLI card's retail price must be dropped to compete with the more efficient and profitable designs of the competitors. To top this off each card must have TWO fully functioning GPUs and 3dfx's early poor VSA-100 yields cost them delays and money. Bottom line? 3dfx's brute force for a Voodoo5 design and manufacturing costs them money. How may more times must I repeat this simple logic of profits and margins and how they benefit or hurt a company?

I think you are missing my point.... >agreed. and that is the point. > >nVidia sold the chips to Creative/Elsa/Guillemot, etc. and those companies >CHARGED that much, and got that much. nVidia certainly didn't NEED to >charge that much. they chose to because the market could bear it. > No doubt the market could bear it no denying that...but you are forgetting that its not only what the market can bear that sets prices. Its also what you are willing to make to win market share. Big ooopsy there...eh. The only way to sustain artificially high prices was to conspire amongst the card manufactors to hold the prices high. Thats basically impossible....greed and market share are more important. Guillemont wants to drive Creative out of the Graphics card business and Creative want to drive ASUS out of the 3d Card business and they all released their cards about the same time. Anyone thinking that they were keeping prices high is not thinking realistically. >Also, DDr is more expneisve than SDR, but guess what? 3dfx had to buy the >SDR to put on their boards. nVidia didn't have to pay a single red cent for >the 32MB of RAM on the Creative GTS2 cards. Creative paid for that. Not arguing whether the 3dfx business model was a good idea....I thought them selling cards was a bad idea. But it wasnt a bad idea because their card design was bad...it was a bad idea because it took too many resources away from their core strength design. The point here is whether its VSA-100 Voodoo 5 solution was a bad design. It was not....it was an efficient use of resources to achieve an end. The Geforce 2 as manufactored by any of the companies was as expensive as the Voodoo5 because of its use of higher priced RAM and a much more complex difficult to manufactor (read expensive) single chip. On top of that it was as feature rich as the Voodoo 5....when configured with 32mb even though it cost the consumer the same. > >agreed, but you're TOTALLY missing the point > >NVIDIA DOESN'T BUY THE RAM. They only manufacture the chips. and although >a GeF2 chip costs more tha a VSA100, it DOESN'T cost more than 2 by a >longshot (.18u vs. .25u) No you are totally missing the point. The gentleman Im debating with is arguing that the Voodoo 5 is more expensive to manufactor then Geforce 2 and the reality at the shopping mall says he is wrong. Nvidia had to equip it with expensive RAM, and expensive single chip and in its 32mb configuration it still didnt match the V5 which cost the same with twice the RAM. No doubt that Nvidia is reaping the benefits of not having to manufactor the cards...Im not debating that....and 3dfx is not debating that....they have stated that they made a mistake. But the gentleman tries to extend that admission into an admission that they believe that their design was a bad one. That is incorrect....as proven by the efforts of Nvidia to achieve the same results in FSAA. > >actually, yes it is. The 4500 sucks. It's slow. the MX trounces it in the >feature department where OEM's like to tread, and THAT IS WHERE THE $$$ ARE >BRO!!!!1 No doubt and its a toss up about what is to be done about winning OEM support. The battle is not being lost on the actual design of the card front...anyone who owns a V3 will tell you that the card was outstanding. Its being lost on the public relations front by allowing Nvidia to dictate the terms of what is required to be a great card. > >I love my 5500, but "efficiency" isn't something I'd use to describe it. > I think that efficiency is exactly how I would describe it...using the least expensive components to compete with a card that was released 6 months after you were supposed to release. They did an outstanding job to be able to pull that off. Voodoo 5 may end up being the card that saved that company. It could have sunk the company had it not been so strong.... >agreed 100% > >shoulda/woulda/coulda Eveyone gets shoulda/woulda/coulda's from time to time....no matter how hard you try from time to time you screw up. I have always believed that if you dont screw up you arent trying hard enough. Nvidia may have also missed a ship date with the NV-20 which was supposed to be released for Christmas.... PAPA DOC > >B-/ > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

Since we cannot know what the costs are to the manufactor we can only observe the cost to the consumer. That is a clear indication given the amount of competition and the absolute overiding desire to stick stakes in each others hearts in the Videa card business. Nvidia wants to kill ATI who wants to kill 3dfx who wants to kill Nvidia....Creative wants to kill Guillemont who wants to kill ASUS who wants to kill whomever...there is plenty of reason to not keep prices high. The difficulty in manufactoring both the chipset and the RAM drove the price of the Geforce...indeed for a time it was almost impossible to get a DDR ram board because of the difficulty of making the chips. The evidence is in the price of the board. If a single chip was so much cheaper to make they would have done it...had they released the Geforce 2 32mb at 150 instead of 350 3dfx and ATI would have been done for....but they couldnt do that...it was too expensive to make their single chip. Indeed I believe I read where it actually has more circuits than a P-III....that is NOT cheap. 3dfx on the other hand had a relatively simple GPU and cheap ram that was already being manufactored to specs more than meeting their requirements. They had better features and much more stable drivers.... PAPA DOC class dismissed...

Quoted text (15 lines)

>Papa, please go back to a few more economic lessons... I'm clearly talking >about the cost to the MANUFACTURER and not the consumer. An SLI configured >card is MORE expensive to manufacture than a single ship solution. Profit >margin is especially lost if this SLI card's retail price must be dropped to >compete with the more efficient and profitable designs of the competitors. >To top this off each card must have TWO fully functioning GPUs and 3dfx's >early poor VSA-100 yields cost them delays and money. > >Bottom line? 3dfx's brute force for a Voodoo5 design and manufacturing >costs them money. > >How may more times must I repeat this simple logic of profits and margins >and how they benefit or hurt a company? > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

This needs to be fleshed out.... The Geforce is held up as an "efficient design" because of its single chip. And yet is it efficient to design features into a card that are not used..? Would it be efficient to design a car for instance that has a weed wacker on the front of it, make the people who want to buy the car buy the weed wacker even though no one is gonna wacking any weeds...? And yet for the last year or more thats exactly what Nvidia users have been paying for....the TnL GPU that has not been used. This GPU has added significant complexity and cost to the chip and of course this has been passed right along to the customer. It was not efficient to be forced to use the most expensive hard to manufactor memory to provide the bandwidth required to match the Voodoo 5's feature of FSAA. This efficiency thing got started with one of those whiz bang knows just enough to be dangerous types...but when you look at it rationally it is NOT efficient to force customers to pay for something they are NOT using. PAPA DOC >I love my 5500, but "efficiency" isn't something I'd use to describe it. > >B-/ > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a1e921a.116174225@news... > It was not efficient to be forced to use the most expensive hard to > manufactor memory to provide the bandwidth required to match the > Voodoo 5's feature of FSAA. FACT: FSAA does not sell cards. FACT: What hypes a chipset and video card in this market is sheer performance in speed. FACT: FSAA has been proven to only be beneficial to the CPU limited and TINY hard-core simming community -- that I've been a part of for years. FACT: All out graphic card speed of twitching first person shooters is where the majority of the market is hyped and targeted around. Up until a year ago the argument for 3dfx products was all out speed at the expense of image quality.... How quickly things are forgotten when the fans of one spectrum must find something to rally behind in defense of their baby.

"Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:NkAT5.694892$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > "Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3a1e921a.116174225@news... > > It was not efficient to be forced to use the most expensive hard to > > manufactor memory to provide the bandwidth required to match the > > Voodoo 5's feature of FSAA. > > > FACT: FSAA does not sell cards. > > FACT: What hypes a chipset and video card in this market is sheer > performance in speed. > > FACT: FSAA has been proven to only be beneficial to the CPU limited and > TINY hard-core simming community -- that I've been a part of for years. > > FACT: All out graphic card speed of twitching first person shooters is > where the majority of the market is hyped and targeted around. > > Up until a year ago the argument for 3dfx products was all out speed at

the > expense of image quality.... How quickly things are forgotten when thefans > of one spectrum must find something to rally behind in defense of their > baby. Keystone, you need to replace your "FACT:" with "IMO:". Voodoo cards and chipsets have always been stand very well on their own merrits. That's why there are so many of them still out there. So just get off of your Voodoo Hate Group band wagon already. To Papa: Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and just filter this thread out. Just agree to disagree and end it already. Sheesh!

Keystone you doing drugs...? > >FACT: FSAA does not sell cards. You base this opinion on what...? Are you counting chads..? Dimples...? > >FACT: What hypes a chipset and video card in this market is sheer >performance in speed. It would be more correct to say that what hypes piss poor Techno Dweebish Journalists are features no one uses. They fell for that shit a year ago and had a bunch of people buying Geforce 1 cards because TnL enabled games were coming out last Christmans. Silly shits then benchmarked the cards with Benchmarks specifically designed to show TnL . Useless fuckers...they forget who they are working for...the public. Oops thats right many of them have to keep good relations with the card manufactors to get free cards to publish their shit on their websites. > >FACT: FSAA has been proven to only be beneficial to the CPU limited and >TINY hard-core simming community -- that I've been a part of for years. Given your previous pronouncements on design and technology I would say that you dont have any clue about what FSAA is beneficial to. Considering that every major card NOW features FSAA that would be further evidence about your general cluelessness. Racing Sims/MechSims/SportsSims/FlightSims/RPG's/Strategy/and certain of the FPS shooters all look vastly better on a system using FSAA. This is not a small market... > >FACT: All out graphic card speed of twitching first person shooters is >where the majority of the market is hyped and targeted around. That is NOT a fact, it is your hallucinations...you wouldnt recognise a fact if it slapped you on the butt. > >Up until a year ago the argument for 3dfx products was all out speed at the >expense of image quality.... How quickly things are forgotten when the fans >of one spectrum must find something to rally behind in defense of their >baby. No matter because the roles have switched...now the Nvidia owners are saying that only speed counts...a year ago they said that they would rather have 32bit slow then 22 bit fast. Not a problem...its the way it works. But what happened to your argument about the design and technology of 3dfx being deficient...? Have you had second thoughts...? What about that argument of yours saying how the drivers of Nvidia were so much better...? What about the argument about 3dfx not having a openGL ICD...? What about your arguement about it being cheaper to produce a more complex than a P-3 chip with cutting edge memory than it is to produce a card chips much less complex and memory much more standard......? What about that bandwidth argument of yours..? PAPA DOC Flanker Target GPL Crash Dummy www.papadoc.net FALCON 4 Benchmarks

Nah this is too much fun...besides its only in one thread...rather easy to avoid if you dont want to participate...eh...? PAPA DOC >To Papa: Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and just filter this thread >out. Just agree to disagree and end it already. Sheesh! > > > Flanker Target GPL Crash Dummy www.papadoc.net FALCON 4 Benchmarks

"Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Keystone you doing drugs...? Hmmm, I seem to be the rational and less crude one here. > >FACT: FSAA does not sell cards. > > You base this opinion on what...? Are you counting chads..? > Dimples...? Buddy, Papa....FSAA is hardly the driving force for sales in the video card market. It may be tough to accept but in the general marketing of this product this is the truth.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >FACT: What hypes a chipset and video card in this market is sheer > >performance in speed. > >Racing > Sims/MechSims/SportsSims/FlightSims/RPG's/Strategy/and certain of the > FPS shooters all look vastly better on a system using FSAA. This is > not a small market...

I don't know anyone who'd choose a slower and less competative framerate and resolution just to have a marginally prettier image while the screen is static. Speed is the driving factor into what card the average performance junky consumer is looking for. How many OEMs and consumers are looking for extra toggles to tweek and confuse the end-user? Keeping it simple and fast is what makes money. > But what happened to your argument about the design and technology of > 3dfx being deficient...? Have you had second thoughts...? What about > that argument of yours saying how the drivers of Nvidia were so much > better...? nVidia's OpenGL driver is indesputed to be superior by ANY OpenGL developer. To top off their lackluster OpenGL effort (on par with Matrox's fiasco) 3dfx has had problems with its Direct3D code, even to the point of many Direct3d games being hampered to use just a SINGLE GPU on their primo Voodoo5 board. > What about the argument about 3dfx not having a openGL > ICD...? Pardon me? I said they lacked a quality and competative OpenGL... 3dfx could only provide competative speed with their lobotomised mini-GL gaming code. > What about your arguement about it being cheaper to produce a > more complex than a P-3 chip with cutting edge memory than it is to > produce a card chips much less complex and memory much more > standard......? Two chips cost more to produce than one. This isn't too complicated a notion since nVidia and 3dfx use the SAME fabrication plant. It takes twice as long and twice the resouces to produce double the chipsets... Whoa, but Papa believs 3dfx wields a magic cloning wand. Double the the memory costs more than half. Why is this so difficult for you to accept? > What about that bandwidth argument of yours..? DDR provided the leading bandwidth for both nVidia and ATi and since its first use this memory has drastically reduced in price. When first used with the Geforce and Radeon its expense was passed along to the consumer, retaining higher profit margins for the OEMs.

"Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:fwCT5.695151$[email hidden]... > >Racing > > Sims/MechSims/SportsSims/FlightSims/RPG's/Strategy/and certain of the > > FPS shooters all look vastly better on a system using FSAA. This is > > not a small market... > > I don't know anyone who'd choose a slower and less competative framerateand > resolution just to have a marginally prettier image while the screen is > static. Oops, I meant this in reference to FPS games.

What is it with this hmmm....sounds like you are performing sexual acts while posting. >Buddy, Papa....FSAA is hardly the driving force for sales in the video card >market. It may be tough to accept but in the general marketing of this >product this is the truth. Yea FSAA was so unimportant that Nvidia was rushing as fast as they could to activate it in their bandwidth limited card.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> >FACT: What hypes a chipset and video card in this market is sheer >> >performance in speed. >> >>Racing >> Sims/MechSims/SportsSims/FlightSims/RPG's/Strategy/and certain of the >> FPS shooters all look vastly better on a system using FSAA. This is >> not a small market... > >I don't know anyone who'd choose a slower and less competative framerate and >resolution just to have a marginally prettier image while the screen is >static.

There you go again....trying to say that the Voodoo 5 is significantly less speedy than the Geforce 2. It just aint so....in fact (this is a fact that I discovered myself thru testing rather than your method of chad counting by placing the material to your head and attempting to devine the gods meaning) in fact in some games the Voodoo 5 is significantly faster. >Speed is the driving factor into what card the average performance junky >consumer is looking for. How many OEMs and consumers are looking for extra >toggles to tweek and confuse the end-user? Keeping it simple and fast is >what makes money. And when nothing is tweeked on the Voodoo 5 it is stunningly fast.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> But what happened to your argument about the design and technology of >> 3dfx being deficient...? Have you had second thoughts...? What about >> that argument of yours saying how the drivers of Nvidia were so much >> better...? > >nVidia's OpenGL driver is indesputed to be superior by ANY OpenGL developer. >To top off their lackluster OpenGL effort (on par with Matrox's fiasco) 3dfx >has had problems with its Direct3D code, even to the point of many Direct3d >games being hampered to use just a SINGLE GPU on their primo Voodoo5 board.

Try not to go on too much about buggy drivers. I have a file on buggy drivers based on first hand experience backed up by independent sources. It doesnt favor the Nvidia brand of cards....And yes no doubt the Nvidia OpenGL driver is great...wouldnt it be wonderful if more games were OpenGl....sadly they are not. And Nvidia's track record with buggy Geforce 2 D3D drivers means they shouldnt be the first ones casting stones. The bug in the Voodoo cards was very hard to even notice as contrasted by the Nvidia's complete lack of desire to even run some games.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> What about the argument about 3dfx not having a openGL >> ICD...? > >Pardon me? I said they lacked a quality and competative OpenGL... 3dfx >could only provide competative speed with their lobotomised mini-GL gaming >code.

That is NOT what you said and even if it was (it wasnt) you are still incorrect. Their openGL enabled them to play every openGL game out there...and even when they provided a MiniGL it also allowed anyone to play any OpenGl game. Now for a little refresher of what you actually said.

Quoted text (15 lines)

>That's 'MiniGL' Papa, not OpenGL. 3dfx has even been behind Matrox for >decent OpenGL drivers. We were talking about driver support and this is one >crucial area where 3dfx has truly lagged behind nVidia. > >> What about your arguement about it being cheaper to produce a >> more complex than a P-3 chip with cutting edge memory than it is to >> produce a card chips much less complex and memory much more >> standard......? > >Two chips cost more to produce than one. This isn't too complicated a >notion since nVidia and 3dfx use the SAME fabrication plant. It takes twice >as long and twice the resouces to produce double the chipsets... Whoa, but >Papa believs 3dfx wields a magic cloning wand. >

Shit Im sorry Im arguing with someone thinks that just because Ford produces both a 4 cylinder and 8 cylinder engine from the same plant they cost the same. Complexity makes all the difference in the world there Einstein....one is .25micron the other is .18 micron. One is more complex than a P-III the other isnt...guess which one costs more...? I will make these questions easier for you to grasp...smaller bites perhaps. >Double the the memory costs more than half. Why is this so difficult for >you to accept? Double the memory when its cheaper to produce isnt such a big deal when your architecture allows you to match the other guy who has to use much faster memory(read more expensive) to match your features. You started out by saying that the idea of having SLI was a bad one because it is inefficient.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> What about that bandwidth argument of yours..? > >DDR provided the leading bandwidth for both nVidia and ATi and since its >first use this memory has drastically reduced in price. When first used >with the Geforce and Radeon its expense was passed along to the consumer, >retaining higher profit margins for the OEMs.

DDR memory is still more expensive and they still have to have as much as 3dfx Voodoo 5 to match the V5's ability to do FSAA. And saying that the expense is passed along to the consumer is a useless bit of nonsense of course its passed along to the consumer...the entire cost of the entire card including the profit is passed along. What do you think that NvidiaSan reaches into his pocket to buy a bit of each card after it is purchased....? PAPA DOC Flanker Target GPL Crash Dummy www.papadoc.net FALCON 4 Benchmarks

"Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lvDT5.695192$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > "Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:fwCT5.695151$[email hidden]... > > >Racing > > > Sims/MechSims/SportsSims/FlightSims/RPG's/Strategy/and certain of the > > > FPS shooters all look vastly better on a system using FSAA. This is > > > not a small market... > > > > I don't know anyone who'd choose a slower and less competative framerate > and > > resolution just to have a marginally prettier image while the screen is > > static. > > Oops, I meant this in reference to FPS games. >

Haven't yet bothered playing an FPS, but in flight-sims it's precisely when you are moving that you appreciate FSAA. Jaggies in a static screen I can live with, but that horrible swimming on the ground and the way the jaggies on a wing change as the plane banks - it is wonderful to be rid of those. Rob

"Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Nah this is too much fun...besides its only in one thread...rather > easy to avoid if you dont want to participate...eh...? Well since nobody else is participating except you and him, perhaps you could move this to email...eh...?

Pierre Legrand <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a1e184b.84986632@news... > > I think you are missing my point.... quite possible! > >agreed. and that is the point. > > > >nVidia sold the chips to Creative/Elsa/Guillemot, etc. and thosecompanies

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >CHARGED that much, and got that much. nVidia certainly didn't NEED to > >charge that much. they chose to because the market could bear it. > > > > No doubt the market could bear it no denying that...but you are > forgetting that its not only what the market can bear that sets > prices. Its also what you are willing to make to win market share. Big > ooopsy there...eh. The only way to sustain artificially high prices > was to conspire amongst the card manufactors to hold the prices high.

or nvidia sold the chips VERY VERY expensively to the manufacturers at first, since the only competition at the time was the DDr Ge1. The 5500 was delayed. About a month after the GTS was released, teh cards came down by about $100. They had that $100 easily in the bank as extra profit from the "early adopters", who are always willing to pay more. > Thats basically impossible....greed and market share are more > important. Guillemont wants to drive Creative out of the Graphics card > business and Creative want to drive ASUS out of the 3d Card business > and they all released their cards about the same time. Anyone thinking > that they were keeping prices high is not thinking realistically. they had prices high because they COULD have prices high. that was the point. They didn't NEED to have prices high. If you can sell something for $XXX, why sell it for $XXX-??? sell it for what people will pay for it. > > >Also, DDr is more expneisve than SDR, but guess what? 3dfx had to buythe > >SDR to put on their boards. nVidia didn't have to pay a single red centfor

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >the 32MB of RAM on the Creative GTS2 cards. Creative paid for that. > > Not arguing whether the 3dfx business model was a good idea....I > thought them selling cards was a bad idea. But it wasnt a bad idea > because their card design was bad...it was a bad idea because it took > too many resources away from their core strength design. The point > here is whether its VSA-100 Voodoo 5 solution was a bad design. It was > not....it was an efficient use of resources to achieve an end.

mmm.....i'll have to disagree here, but perhaps we can agree to disagree.. > The Geforce 2 as manufactored by any of the companies was as expensive > as the Voodoo5 because of its use of higher priced RAM and a much more > complex difficult to manufactor (read expensive) single chip. On top > of that it was as feature rich as the Voodoo 5....when configured with > 32mb even though it cost the consumer the same. i think mebbe we're arguing something different here. > >agreed, but you're TOTALLY missing the point > > > >NVIDIA DOESN'T BUY THE RAM. They only manufacture the chips. andalthough

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >a GeF2 chip costs more tha a VSA100, it DOESN'T cost more than 2 by a > >longshot (.18u vs. .25u) > > No you are totally missing the point. The gentleman Im debating with > is arguing that the Voodoo 5 is more expensive to manufactor then > Geforce 2 and the reality at the shopping mall says he is wrong. > Nvidia had to equip it with expensive RAM, and expensive single chip > and in its 32mb configuration it still didnt match the V5 which cost > the same with twice the RAM.

okay. 3dfx loses out in the double chip configuration. It costs *THEM* much more than a single chip would. > No doubt that Nvidia is reaping the benefits of not having to > manufactor the cards...Im not debating that....and 3dfx is not > debating that....they have stated that they made a mistake. But the > gentleman tries to extend that admission into an admission that they > believe that their design was a bad one. it's more costly to 3dfx than a single chip config would be. I think that is what he is saying. > That is incorrect....as > proven by the efforts of Nvidia to achieve the same results in FSAA. yes, 3dfx did anice thing with their modified accumulation buffer to get RGSS. Definitely superiro to OGSS > > > >actually, yes it is. The 4500 sucks. It's slow. the MX trounces it inthe > >feature department where OEM's like to tread, and THAT IS WHERE THE $$$ARE > >BRO!!!!1 > > No doubt and its a toss up about what is to be done about winning OEM > support. they need to develop a VERY good SINGLE CHIP design to win over OEM's. It must have tons of "checkmark" features, whether they're "useable or not" > The battle is not being lost on the actual design of the card > front...anyone who owns a V3 will tell you that the card was > outstanding. Its being lost on the public relations front by allowing > Nvidia to dictate the terms of what is required to be a great card. yep. and OEM's are eating it for lunch. If 3dfx wants to live, they need to adapt. Instead of saying "what is really useable/necessary", they need to just shut the hell up and supply EVERY SINGLE FEATURE POSSIBLE. otherwise, they will continue to get annihilated on the OEM front. > > > >I love my 5500, but "efficiency" isn't something I'd use to describe it. > > > > I think that efficiency is exactly how I would describe it...using the > least expensive components but using double the amount to get similar performance > to compete with a card that was released 6 > months after you were supposed to release. They did an outstanding job > to be able to pull that off. Voodoo 5 may end up being the card that > saved that company. It could have sunk the company had it not been so > strong.... and had they executed, they would've shredded nvidia. The 5500 obliterates the damn DDr. Unfortunately, it wasn't released at the same time as the DDr, it was released with the GTS. > Eveyone gets shoulda/woulda/coulda's from time to time....no matter > how hard you try from time to time you screw up. I have always > believed that if you dont screw up you arent trying hard enough. > Nvidia may have also missed a ship date with the NV-20 which was > supposed to be released for Christmas.... sure. But why should they release it at christmas? the GTS-Ultra is far and away the performance champion right now. The GTS is a better performer *overall*. We can argue whether or not the performance difference is as great as the benchmarks say they are (I don't think so after owning both), but the fact is BENCHMARKS SELL!!! PERFORMANCE SELLS!!! FEATURES SELL!!! and a design that requires 2 chips to get the performance of one may sell in retail, but DOESN'T sell to OEM's.

Pierre Legrand <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a1e921a.116174225@news... > This needs to be fleshed out.... > > The Geforce is held up as an "efficient design" because of its single > chip. no. it's performance in a single chip is efficient. > And yet is it efficient to design features into a card that are > not used..? that wasn't done for "efficiency's sake", that was done for "feature's sake" to sell to OEM's. Guess what? It worked. > Would it be efficient to design a car for instance that > has a weed wacker on the front of it, make the people who want to buy > the car buy the weed wacker even though no one is gonna wacking any > weeds...? You're not paying extra for an nvidia card because of the T&L, you're paying extra due to supply and demand. > And yet for the last year or more thats exactly what Nvidia > users have been paying for....the TnL GPU that has not been used. This > GPU has added significant complexity and cost to the chip and of > course this has been passed right along to the customer. nope. The consumer pays what the consumer *will* pay. It's supply and demand. They wouldn't release the chip if it wasn't "efficient and cost efective", and they sure as hell wouldn't have the insane profit margin if the chip wasn't "cost effective" I think you're overestimating how much the chip is costing nvidia. If it was costing them that much, they wouldn't have such ridiculously incredible financials right now. they charge what they charge because they COULD charge that much and make a boatload of $$$. > It was not efficient to be forced to use the most expensive hard to > manufactor memory to provide the bandwidth required to match the > Voodoo 5's feature of FSAA. agreed there. But the same can be said of SLI's memory needs. i.e. "need twice as much RAM to get the same amount of useable texture memory" So, is it more "efficient" to use twice as much memory? > This efficiency thing got started with one of those whiz bang knows > just enough to be dangerous types...but when you look at it rationally > it is NOT efficient to force customers to pay for something they are > NOT using. that has nothign to do with efficiency, like I said. They charge what they charge for GeForces because people pay the $$$ for them.

Keystone <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:NkAT5.694892$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > "Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3a1e921a.116174225@news... > > It was not efficient to be forced to use the most expensive hard to > > manufactor memory to provide the bandwidth required to match the > > Voodoo 5's feature of FSAA. > > > FACT: FSAA does not sell cards.

that's not a fact at all. It seems to do a pretty good job of selling the 5500 how many people would own a 5500 if it's FSAA wasn't obviously better than the GTS's? > FACT: What hypes a chipset and video card in this market is sheer > performance in speed. and feature set. > FACT: FSAA has been proven to only be beneficial to the CPU limited and > TINY hard-core simming community -- that I've been a part of for years. agreed. But FSAA 2x on the 5500 is quite useful in more than just sims. > FACT: All out graphic card speed of twitching first person shooters is > where the majority of the market is hyped and targeted around. yep. no doubt about that. > Up until a year ago the argument for 3dfx products was all out speed atthe > expense of image quality.... How quickly things are forgotten when thefans > of one spectrum must find something to rally behind in defense of their > baby. that one goes both ways. Remember when the TNT1 "had such great 32-bit color and that V2-SLI may be 38x as fast, but it's ugly" heh...total 180 in both camps.

i'm in. :) Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mtET5.17460$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> "Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Nah this is too much fun...besides its only in one thread...rather > > easy to avoid if you dont want to participate...eh...? > > Well since nobody else is participating except you and him, perhaps you > could move this to email...eh...? > > > >

Pierre Legrand <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a1e1df5.86436791@news... > Since we cannot know what the costs are to the manufactor we can only > observe the cost to the consumer. wrong for 2 reasons 1) costs to the consumer do NOT RELATE to costs to the manufacturer. Take a look at the prices of the V3 these days (and even a year ago) 2) To assume the 5500 is no more expensive to produce than a GTS, then we have to assume that: a) The VSA100 is half as expensive as a GTS core (which is just a GeForce1 core that is overclcoked on a cheaper .18u process) b) SDRAM is half as expensive as DDr (Which we know isn't even close to being true > The difficulty in manufactoring both the chipset and the RAM drove the > price of the Geforce... what drove the price of the GeForce was the fact that nothing even approached it in terms of speed and visual quality.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>indeed for a time it was almost impossible to > get a DDR ram board because of the difficulty of making the chips. The > evidence is in the price of the board. If a single chip was so much > cheaper to make they would have done it...had they released the > Geforce 2 32mb at 150 instead of 350 3dfx and ATI would have been done > for....but they couldnt do that...it was too expensive to make their > single chip.

what in heaven's name are you smoking man? Look at the market. nvidia, in temrs of performance, owned the market from $100 and up. When the GTS was released @ $300 or so and the 64MB was released @ $400 or so, that was because of early adopters. They ALWAYS are willing to pay more. Why do you think the original 12MB voodoo2 boards were $300 apiece, then lowered to $150 when the TNT1 started sellign well. It's not just design costs, it's competition! The GeForce1 SDR had none until the DDR came out. Nothing came even CLOSE to a DDr until the GTS came out. People paid $300 for the 32MB GTS, and $400 for the 64MB GTS. nvidia can make those things so cheap that they CAN still make money whil etheir IHV's are selling the GTS for <$200 > 3dfx on the other hand had a relatively simple GPU and cheap ram that > was already being manufactored to specs more than meeting their > requirements. right. it's a .25u part (more expensive than a .18u part) and they needed to use 2 of them. > They had better features and much more stable > drivers.... aside from RGSS, that is an insane statement.\ what's funny is that I'm arguing about the merits of an nvidia card, and so many people call me a 3dfx fanboy in other forums (check anandtech sometime)

"Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message Complexity makes all the difference in the world > there Einstein....one is .25micron the other is .18 micron. One is > more complex than a P-III the other isnt...guess which one costs > more...? I will make these questions easier for you to grasp...smaller > bites perhaps. Ahh, ok...Shall we dive into this spectrum of manufacturing as well? Per silicon wafer one will yield a greater number of chipsets if the chip die sizes are decrease. It is more cost efficient to manufacture smaller die sizes with the price paid for R&D being easily made up with decreased manufucturing costs if a ready buyer is present. 3dfx has a tripple whammy with their Voodoo5s. Not only having to manufacture DOUBLE the chipsets and purchase double the memory for each card but they're also stuck with manufacturing a dated and less cost efficient die size per chip. OUCH... Profits dip and shareholders become quite antsy with the direct competitor is sweeping up OEM deals and launches 3 more chipsets while 3dfx has provided nothing new. Papa with the fresh pie on your face, thanks for reminding me of another archaic and costly point with 3dfx's VSA-100. I wish 3dfx to turn around its plummetting direction. By praising them for their mistakes you're a fairly invisible cheerleader.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> DDR memory is still more expensive and they still have to have as much > as 3dfx Voodoo 5 to match the V5's ability to do FSAA. And saying that > the expense is passed along to the consumer is a useless bit of > nonsense of course its passed along to the consumer...the entire cost > of the entire card including the profit is passed along. What do you > think that NvidiaSan reaches into his pocket to buy a bit of each card > after it is purchased....?

....Papa, the retail price is what the market will bear as directed through competition. With the Voodoo5 3dfx remains with a less profitable and dated design that has been left to compete with 2 NEW introductions of faster chipsets and card designs from its main competitor. With much less than the long missed profit margin potential 3dfx lost a fortune from their poor management, poor yields, and late delivery of their costly Voodoo5 design. The slow to market and lackluster VSA-100 is proof that 3dfx has faltered with its R&D and they must quickly provide a leading or at least competative next generation competitor to their future OEMs.

"SGT Robo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8vnbfl$rtj$[email hidden]... > > what's funny is that I'm arguing about the merits of an nvidia card, andso > many people call me a 3dfx fanboy in other forums (check anandtechsometime) > Exactly... Both of my systems have 3dfx cards in them and I admire the Voodoo5 for what it provides with my older Glide only and newer sims. My priorities are with simming, yet we flight simmers are an inconsequential slice of the massive retail and OEM market. Criticism is good when one makes mistakes. This how people learn... This is how companies learn. 'Ol Papa Doc has become an irrational 3dfx zealot who cannot recognise the clear and dated faults of a .25 micron, dual VSA-100 and double the necessary memory design of the Voodoo5. He cannot comprehend the basic economic (Flamingo boy seems to believe only a direct channel is present from the factory to the credit card holding hands of the end-user) arguments that such a design hurts profit, and being tardy to the market with brutal competition FURTHER eliminates the once grand potential for profits. He won't even accept that being late to market further hurt this company. Damn, he won't even recognise this trouble that they have put themselves in while nVidia has released faster, more powerful, profitable and more efficient designs to their eager OEMs...

"Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in <NkAT5.694892$[email hidden]>: > >" > >FACT: FSAA does not sell cards. > What an arrogant statement. Fact: I bought mine for the FSAA AND the speed improvement in the games I play. That statement CAN be proven Chuck

What the hell would you possibly care about this anyway? -- [email hidden] "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mtET5.17460$[email hidden]... > "Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Nah this is too much fun...besides its only in one thread...rather > > easy to avoid if you dont want to participate...eh...? > > Well since nobody else is participating except you and him, perhaps you > could move this to email...eh...? > > > >

"Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:fwCT5.695151$[email hidden]... > > "Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Keystone you doing drugs...? > > Hmmm, I seem to be the rational and less crude one here. Hey dork that is for the readers of the NG to decide, not for you to beat your chest and proclaim. Duh. > > >FACT: FSAA does not sell cards. > > > > You base this opinion on what...? Are you counting chads..? > > Dimples...? > > Buddy, Papa....FSAA is hardly the driving force for sales in the videocard

Quoted text (12 lines)

> market. It may be tough to accept but in the general marketing of this > product this is the truth. > > > >FACT: What hypes a chipset and video card in this market is sheer > > >performance in speed. > > > >Racing > > Sims/MechSims/SportsSims/FlightSims/RPG's/Strategy/and certain of the > > FPS shooters all look vastly better on a system using FSAA. This is > > not a small market... > > I don't know anyone who'd choose a slower and less competative framerate

and > resolution just to have a marginally prettier image while the screen is > static. Many people would and you know it if they also get stability. Duh again. -- [email hidden]

"Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lvDT5.695192$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > "Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:fwCT5.695151$[email hidden]... > > >Racing > > > Sims/MechSims/SportsSims/FlightSims/RPG's/Strategy/and certain of the > > > FPS shooters all look vastly better on a system using FSAA. This is > > > not a small market... > > > > I don't know anyone who'd choose a slower and less competative framerate > and > > resolution just to have a marginally prettier image while the screen is > > static. > > Oops, I meant this in reference to FPS games.

Oh I'm affraid we knew what you meant and it is still screwed logic. -- [email hidden]

"Chuck C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0DQT5.11882$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in > <NkAT5.694892$[email hidden]>: > > > > >" > > > > >FACT: FSAA does not sell cards. > > > > What an arrogant statement. > Fact: I bought mine for the FSAA AND the speed improvement in the games I > play. That statement CAN be proven

It was a generalisation. FSAA is hardly a major selling point for OEMs and the majority of the retail market. You're in the minority, and such a small market share does not deliver the profits.

I could ask you the same question anyhow, now couldn't I? Why do you care what I care? Hence, why did YOU post? "Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LlRT5.39783$[email hidden]... > What the hell would you possibly care about this anyway?

Pierre Legrand <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Well then.... > > > > >Well, it actually *is* dated, by your own admission > > Fine then by your own admission the Geforce 2 Ultra is even MORE dated > since it is essentially the same chip as what was released October 99.

the GTS Ultra wasn't supposed to be released in October99 the 5500 was supposed to be released last Christmas. the GTS-Ultra is an overclocked GTS is an overclocked GeForce1 DDr. No doubt about that. but the Ultra wasn't supposed to be relesaed last christmas, and the 5500 was. big difference.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > >It was supposed to be released last year for X-Mas in time to challenge > > the GeForce DDr. > >So...uh...it *is* dated.> > >Obsolete? No, I'll disagree entirely. > > The Geforce 256 was released last October...the Ultra is basically the > same chip. The only difference being the reduction from .22 to .18

you forgot the doubling of clockspeed. the VSA100-based 5500 was supposed to be released last chrimstas at it's present clockspeed.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >It's architecture is wasteful and inefficient in some ways, however. > >It requires 2 chips to be competitive. I love my 5500, but let's be > >realistic. It'd be nice if it performed the way it does as a single > > chip. > >It would also be nice if it didn't require 64MB of RAM to get 32MB of > >texture memory. > > Why would it be nice...? What you are not getting because you to > believe the hype and bullshit of people with just enough knowledge to > be dangerous is that its the way the V5 is built that makes it what it > is.

so you'd prefer the SLI setup requiring 64MB of RAM to a "5500" that got IDENTICAL performance to one that had one chip and 32MB of RAM?

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >The ONLY way that the 5500 can be as cheap to produce as a GTS is if the > >following 2 statements are true: > >1) A GTS core costs >= 2x as much as a VSA > >2) DDR costs >=2x as much as SDR > > > >Now then, I honestly don't know how much a GTS or a VSA core costs. I DO > >know that a GTS core is identical to a GeForce core, except that it is a > >smaller process and a higher clockspeed. That alone makes it cheaper > >(smaller fab process, .22u to .18u) > > And more difficult to manufacture exactly because of its higher > clockspeed....read more expensive

the clockspeed obviously wasn't that hard to managae, since the GTS-Ultra is being released @ 250 Mhz. The only thing holding it back is the RAM. the .18u process allows for 200 Mhz pretty easily. Judging from the 37 companies that have saturated the market with GTS cards, I really don't think nvidia is having problems with "difficult to manufacture" chips. their yields are incredible. > >We DO know that DDR is NOT twice as expensive as SDR. Therefore, there > > is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY a GTS can cost as much to produce as a 5500, which > > needs double the memory and twice as many cores. > > Really how do we know this..? DDr isn't priced twice as high as SDR. that's how.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >> But they also had to match the amount of Ram used...meaning that the > >> 32mb of expensive hard DDR ram wasnt enough...they had to use 64mb of > >> expensive DDR ram to match the V5's x4 FSAA. So you have much more > >> expensive 23 million transistor GPU along with absolute state of the > >> art DDR ram and you have a much more epensive solution all because > >> they were driven to a single chip solution. > > > >Does DDR cost twice as much as SDR? Nope. > > Ah well you have no proof of that as well. Remember that you cannot > provide prices of the market now but prices when the chips were > released. Furthermore to match the Voodoo 5's FSAA abilities they had > to provide the same amount of memory....

they don't match the 5500's FSAA abilities, IMHO. Not that it mattesr in this discussion.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > >Does a .18u GTS core cost twice as much as a .25u VSA100? > > > >dunno, but I SINCERELY doubt it. > > Well glad a little doubt is creeping in there I was beginning to think > it was as hopeless talking to you as it is talking to that Keystone > character.

You're just not being logical. IF you can find the manufacturing prices for both chips, then great. Please let me know. I would think that common sense and logic would be enuf.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >> >So, is it more "efficient" to use twice as much memory? > >> > >> Seeing as how the Geforce also had to use 64mb of memory to compete in > >> FSAA I would say that yes it was the minimum required for the features > >> offered. That defines efficient. > > > >hehehe....you should be a politician. That was a laughable spin job. > > Yes but using Keystones method it is a FACT. Matter of fact its true > to achieve the same features they did have to use the same amount of > memory.

hey, I gave keystone a kick to the shins, too. Dont' confuse my ramblings with his ramblings. <g> > >okay man. Believe what you want. If you honestly think that a VSA is > > half as expensive as a GTS core, and if you honestly think that DDR istwice > > as expensive as SDR, then you are lying to yourself. > > No what I believe is that it was a terrific way to achieve their goals > of x4 FSAA at the lowest expense. it was the most easily available way to them, I'll agree. They already understood the basics of SLI technology, but getting it to work on a single card may have been a bit more than they ahd planned for. > Where I went wrong is strictly > comparing it to the Geforce 2 32mb...when indeed it should be compared > to the 64mb Nvidia card since thats the only one that can do > comparable FSAA...mind you only in speed not in quality. okay, I can agree. FSAA on the GTS is generally faster than on the 5500, but I think it's an apples/oranges comparison, since the 5500 can do 2x, and I think i't spretty darn close to the quality of nvidia's 4x in many situations. > And to > forstall any attempt to say that FSAA doesnt matter Nvidia is claiming > that the NV-20 is gonna do FSAA alot better... neato finally. i'll give the NV20 a chance if it's 2d doesn't make my eyes bleed.

Gonzo wrote in message <1wVT5.20611$[email hidden]>... >I could ask you the same question anyhow, now couldn't I? > >Why do you care what I care? Hence, why did YOU post? Because it is my destiny. -- [email hidden] >"Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:LlRT5.39783$[email hidden]... >> What the hell would you possibly care about this anyway? > > >

Lets see if we can stay focused on what I disagree with...I dont disagree that manufactoring their own cards was wasteful....I dont disagree that they didnt execute well and that the Voodoo 5 was released late...this is all public knowledge. What I disagree with is the assertion backed by only a laymans knowledge of the video card industry that the VSA-100 is dated and obselete and that the architecture is wasteful and inefficient. >> And yet is it efficient to design features into a card that are >> not used..? > >that wasn't done for "efficiency's sake", that was done for "feature's sake" >to sell to OEM's. We are not discussing marketing. I agree with the you that it was done for marketings sake...if I had a bone to pick about this it would be the lax journalism that led many to believe a year ago that TnL enabled games were just around the corner. This was less useful to the 1,000's of consumers who bought the Geforce 1 believing this than it was to Nvidia who again had silly ass journalists eatiing out of their hands. I actually read a "journalist" going on about how neat it was that 3DMark 2000 was released and how fun it was.....wha...???? No when discussing efficient there is not denying that adding a TnL engine to a card when nothing is around to use it is inefficient. Efficient means nothing wasted nothing on the card that doesnt contribute....the TnL engine is still not contributing. But I agree it was a hell of a marketing tool given the lax journalism.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >> Would it be efficient to design a car for instance that >> has a weed wacker on the front of it, make the people who want to buy >> the car buy the weed wacker even though no one is gonna wacking any >> weeds...? > >You're not paying extra for an nvidia card because of the T&L, you're paying >extra due to supply and demand.

Nonsense....! A 23 million transistor chip is not cheap. Anand even comments on this fact when the chip was first released. To quote Anand: The 23 million transistor GeForce 256 is a costly part to produce and there is very little cost that can be saved there as long as the fabrication process stays at 0.22-micron, so one of the obvious areas to cut costs in would be memory. This will enable manufacturers of 'vanilla' GeForce 256 cards that adhere entirely to NVIDIA's spec to keep their prices low by using slower 6ns memory chips. At the same time, this opens up a new avenue for hardcore gamer GeForce 256 boards that feature faster memory chips and sell at a higher premium.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> And yet for the last year or more thats exactly what Nvidia >> users have been paying for....the TnL GPU that has not been used. This >> GPU has added significant complexity and cost to the chip and of >> course this has been passed right along to the customer. > >nope. The consumer pays what the consumer *will* pay. It's supply and >demand. They wouldn't release the chip if it wasn't "efficient and cost >efective", and they sure as hell wouldn't have the insane profit margin if >the chip wasn't "cost effective"

Nice but you arent taking the entire picture in....sure the consumer will pay what they will pay. But thats not the only force acting on Nvidia....you are acting like they are the only ones who have a chip worth buying. And this is only talking about Nvidia...once they sell the chip to Creative now creative has all kinds of forces acting on them to drive the price down. Nvidia also has the competition of other solutions plus the desire to capture market share....all of this conspires to drive the price down. Witness your own evidence that Nvidia dropped the price down as soon as the V5 was released. All of this makes it realistic to say what the costs are to produce each of the solutions....at least enough to say that Voodoo 5 is not out there in cost to produce. > >I think you're overestimating how much the chip is costing nvidia. If it >was costing them that much, they wouldn't have such ridiculously incredible >financials right now. See above....23 million Transistors of the Nvidia compared to the 14 million of the Voodoo 5. > >they charge what they charge because they COULD charge that much and make a >boatload of $$$. If they operated in a vaccum that might be true....sadly for you they dont.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> It was not efficient to be forced to use the most expensive hard to >> manufactor memory to provide the bandwidth required to match the >> Voodoo 5's feature of FSAA. > >agreed there. But the same can be said of SLI's memory needs. i.e. "need >twice as much RAM to get the same amount of useable texture memory"

But they also had to match the amount of Ram used...meaning that the 32mb of expensive hard DDR ram wasnt enough...they had to use 64mb of expensive DDR ram to match the V5's x4 FSAA. So you have much more expensive 23 million transistor GPU along with absolute state of the art DDR ram and you have a much more epensive solution all because they were driven to a single chip solution. > >So, is it more "efficient" to use twice as much memory? Seeing as how the Geforce also had to use 64mb of memory to compete in FSAA I would say that yes it was the minimum required for the features offered. That defines efficient.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> This efficiency thing got started with one of those whiz bang knows >> just enough to be dangerous types...but when you look at it rationally >> it is NOT efficient to force customers to pay for something they are >> NOT using. > >that has nothign to do with efficiency, like I said. They charge what they >charge for GeForces because people pay the $$$ for them.

You have a good line of bull but being a natural born bullshitter myself means always being able to recognise when its being used on me. PAPA DOC Flanker Target GPL Crash Dummy www.papadoc.net FALCON 4 Benchmarks

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > What I disagree with is the assertion backed by only a laymans > knowledge of the video card industry that the VSA-100 is dated > and obselete and that the architecture is wasteful and inefficient. Well, it actually *is* dated, by your own admission It was supposed to be released last year for X-Mas in time to challenge the GeForce DDr. So...uh...it *is* dated. Obsolete? No, I'll disagree entirely. It's architecture is wasteful and inefficient in some ways, however. It requires 2 chips to be competitive. I love my 5500, but let's be realistic. It'd be nice if it performed the way it does as a single chip. It would also be nice if it didn't require 64MB of RAM to get 32MB of texture memory. So, yes, it is wasteful and inefficient. It's only saving grace is that you can use cheaper RAM to get a good amount of memory throughput. > >> And yet is it efficient to design features into a card that are > >> not used..? > > > >that wasn't done for "efficiency's sake", that was done for "feature'ssake" > >to sell to OEM's. > > We are not discussing marketing. I agree with the you that it was done > for marketings sake...if I had a bone to pick about this it would be > the lax journalism that led many to believe a year ago that TnL > enabled games were just around the corner. agreed 10000% there. HW T&L certainly shows potential, but it isn't there yet. > This was less useful to the > 1,000's of consumers who bought the Geforce 1 believing this than it > was to Nvidia who again had silly ass journalists eatiing out of their > hands. I actually read a "journalist" going on about how neat it was > that 3DMark 2000 was released and how fun it was.....wha...???? hey man, you're preaching to the choir there. No doubt about that. > No when discussing efficient there is not denying that adding a TnL > engine to a card when nothing is around to use it is inefficient. It wasn't done for efficiency's sakes. It was done for marketing sake. It worked. > Efficient means nothing wasted nothing on the card that doesnt > contribute....the TnL engine is still not contributing. But I agree it > was a hell of a marketing tool given the lax journalism. It DOES contribute. It contributed to their profits. <g> actually, it supposedly does a lot of the math which allowed them to claim "HW FSAA" > >You're not paying extra for an nvidia card because of the T&L, you'repaying > >extra due to supply and demand. > > Nonsense....! A 23 million transistor chip is not cheap. <sigh> I understand this. But it is consistently a smaller fab process than it's competitors, and that can make up for it. OBVIOUSLY it has been. Look at their profits! You can get an SDR for $100, an MX for $100, a DDr for $120 and a GTS 32MB for $150. THEY ARE STILL MAKING PROFITS OFF THESE CARDS!!!!!!! > >nope. The consumer pays what the consumer *will* pay. It's supply and > >demand. They wouldn't release the chip if it wasn't "efficient and cost > >efective", and they sure as hell wouldn't have the insane profit marginif

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >the chip wasn't "cost effective" > > Nice but you arent taking the entire picture in....sure the consumer > will pay what they will pay. But thats not the only force acting on > Nvidia....you are acting like they are the only ones who have a chip > worth buying. And this is only talking about Nvidia...once they sell > the chip to Creative now creative has all kinds of forces acting on > them to drive the price down.

they can only lower it so far before they lose money. Creative wouldn't be such a huge supporter of nvidia cards if they weren't making $$$ off them. > Witness your own evidence that > Nvidia dropped the price down as soon as the V5 was released. exactly. They dropped the price down because they COULD. They released it at ~$300-$350 because people would pay for them. If I understood you, you were saying that they were charging that much for the card because nvidia's card was so expensive to produce that they HAD to charge that much. > All of this makes it realistic to say what the costs are to produce eachof > the solutions....at least enough to say that Voodoo 5 is not out there > in cost to produce. I'll state it again. The ONLY way that the 5500 can be as cheap to produce as a GTS is if the following 2 statements are true: 1) A GTS core costs >= 2x as much as a VSA 2) DDR costs >=2x as much as SDR Now then, I honestly don't know how much a GTS or a VSA core costs. I DO know that a GTS core is identical to a GeForce core, except that it is a smaller process and a higher clockspeed. That alone makes it cheaper (smaller fab process, .22u to .18u) We DO know that DDR is NOT twice as expensive as SDR. Therefore, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY a GTS can cost as much to produce as a 5500, which needs double the memory and twice as many cores. Also, let's not even get into chip yields, since the 5500 requires TWICE the yield. > >I think you're overestimating how much the chip is costing nvidia. If it > >was costing them that much, they wouldn't have such ridiculouslyincredible > >financials right now. > > See above....23 million Transistors of the Nvidia compared to the 14 > million of the Voodoo 5. 2x14 million = 28 million those 23 million transistors of the nvidia (on a process that is about 30% smaller) DO NOT cost twice as much as those larger VSA transistors. > >they charge what they charge because they COULD charge that much and makea > >boatload of $$$. > > If they operated in a vaccum that might be true....sadly for you they > dont. for me? why would it be sad for me? I couldn't care less. I own a 5500 now and love it to death. But you are simply lying to yourself. > >agreed there. But the same can be said of SLI's memory needs. i.e."need

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >twice as much RAM to get the same amount of useable texture memory" > > But they also had to match the amount of Ram used...meaning that the > 32mb of expensive hard DDR ram wasnt enough...they had to use 64mb of > expensive DDR ram to match the V5's x4 FSAA. So you have much more > expensive 23 million transistor GPU along with absolute state of the > art DDR ram and you have a much more epensive solution all because > they were driven to a single chip solution.

Does DDR cost twice as much as SDR? Nope. Does a .18u GTS core cost twice as much as a .25u VSA100? dunno, but I SINCERELY doubt it. > >So, is it more "efficient" to use twice as much memory? > > Seeing as how the Geforce also had to use 64mb of memory to compete in > FSAA I would say that yes it was the minimum required for the features > offered. That defines efficient. hehehe....you should be a politician. That was a laughable spin job. > >> This efficiency thing got started with one of those whiz bang knows > >> just enough to be dangerous types...but when you look at it rationally > >> it is NOT efficient to force customers to pay for something they are > >> NOT using. > > > >that has nothign to do with efficiency, like I said. They charge whatthey > >charge for GeForces because people pay the $$$ for them. > > You have a good line of bull but being a natural born bullshitter > myself means always being able to recognise when its being used on me. okay man. Believe what you want. If you honestly think that a VSA is half as expensive as a GTS core, and if you honestly think that DDR is twice as expensive as SDR, then you are lying to yourself.

"Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:iO%T5.41308$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Gonzo wrote in message <1wVT5.20611$[email hidden]>... > >I could ask you the same question anyhow, now couldn't I? > > > >Why do you care what I care? Hence, why did YOU post? > > > Because it is my destiny.

What are you? A fucking Jedi Knight or something?

"Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > No when discussing efficient there is not denying that adding a TnL > engine to a card when nothing is around to use it is inefficient. > Efficient means nothing wasted nothing on the card that doesnt > contribute....the TnL engine is still not contributing. But I agree it > was a hell of a marketing tool given the lax journalism. It was foresight on the part of nVidia where no developers will support a non-existent feature. If they had not pushed forth with such a feature laden GPU then we would have to wait for another company to jerk the industry's interest for OUR own eventual benefit. Give credit where credit is due. Yes, marketing can always play a large portion in the decision to add new technology, even when such technology won't yet provide an immediate result for the end user. The FACTS are that with the Quake 3 engine and now the release of DirectX8, all of those Geforce users can reap some benefits from their purchase. TnL, is and was hardly some phantom spin job that solely exists to cheat people out if their money

"Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in <RdTT5.699654$[email hidden]>:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> >"Chuck C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:0DQT5.11882$[email hidden]... >> "Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in >> <NkAT5.694892$[email hidden]>: >> >> > >> >" >> >> > >> >FACT: FSAA does not sell cards. >> > >> >> What an arrogant statement. >> Fact: I bought mine for the FSAA AND the speed improvement in the >> games I play. That statement CAN be proven > >It was a generalisation. FSAA is hardly a major selling point for OEMs >and the majority of the retail market. >

You didn't say "in general" or "hardly a major selling point", you said "FACT". If you cant admit you were wrong, you're too close to the arguement and are willing to say whatever it takes to get the last word. >You're in the minority, and such a small market share does not deliver >the profits. > > >Maybe, so far it works for me. Chuck

Gonzo wrote in message <_V1U5.19901$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (12 lines)

>"Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:iO%T5.41308$[email hidden]... >> >> Gonzo wrote in message <1wVT5.20611$[email hidden]>... >> >I could ask you the same question anyhow, now couldn't I? >> > >> >Why do you care what I care? Hence, why did YOU post? >> >> >> Because it is my destiny. > >What are you? A fucking Jedi Knight or something?

Around here yes. Who in the hell are you anyway? The last I heard you were on seasame street. -- [email hidden] > > > >

Well then.... > >Well, it actually *is* dated, by your own admission Fine then by your own admission the Geforce 2 Ultra is even MORE dated since it is essentially the same chip as what was released October 99. > >It was supposed to be released last year for X-Mas in time to challenge the >GeForce DDr. >So...uh...it *is* dated.> >Obsolete? No, I'll disagree entirely. The Geforce 256 was released last October...the Ultra is basically the same chip. The only difference being the reduction from .22 to .18 >It's architecture is wasteful and inefficient in some ways, however. >It requires 2 chips to be competitive. I love my 5500, but let's be >realistic. It'd be nice if it performed the way it does as a single chip. >It would also be nice if it didn't require 64MB of RAM to get 32MB of >texture memory. Why would it be nice...? What you are not getting because you to believe the hype and bullshit of people with just enough knowledge to be dangerous is that its the way the V5 is built that makes it what it is. Here is a quote from Scott Sellers: The best way to think about how the Voodoo5 family of boards work is a �divide and conquer� approach. The important thing to remember is that regardless of whether FSAA is enabled or not, the multi-chip boards will always perform better than the single chip boards. In the case of 4-sample FSAA, we �divide and conquer� and each chip, in a 2-chip configuration, processes 2-samples. When FSAA is not enabled, we �divide and conquer� and each chip processes unique scanline bands. It is all configurable by the software driver. So don�t get hung up on the terminology � the bottom line is that the multi-chip boards will have substantially better performance than the single chip competitive solutions.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>The ONLY way that the 5500 can be as cheap to produce as a GTS is if the >following 2 statements are true: >1) A GTS core costs >= 2x as much as a VSA >2) DDR costs >=2x as much as SDR > >Now then, I honestly don't know how much a GTS or a VSA core costs. I DO >know that a GTS core is identical to a GeForce core, except that it is a >smaller process and a higher clockspeed. That alone makes it cheaper >(smaller fab process, .22u to .18u)

And more difficult to manufacture exactly because of its higher clockspeed....read more expensive > >We DO know that DDR is NOT twice as expensive as SDR. Therefore, there is >ABSOLUTELY NO WAY a GTS can cost as much to produce as a 5500, which needs >double the memory and twice as many cores. Really how do we know this..? > >Also, let's not even get into chip yields, since the 5500 requires TWICE the >yield. It requires twice as many chips of nearly half the amount of transistors on an easier to manufactor chip because of much lower clock speed and older technology. >2x14 million = 28 million > >those 23 million transistors of the nvidia (on a process that is about 30% >smaller) DO NOT cost twice as much as those larger VSA transistors. Really provide evidence to support this aside from speculation.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> >> But they also had to match the amount of Ram used...meaning that the >> 32mb of expensive hard DDR ram wasnt enough...they had to use 64mb of >> expensive DDR ram to match the V5's x4 FSAA. So you have much more >> expensive 23 million transistor GPU along with absolute state of the >> art DDR ram and you have a much more epensive solution all because >> they were driven to a single chip solution. > >Does DDR cost twice as much as SDR? Nope.

Ah well you have no proof of that as well. Remember that you cannot provide prices of the market now but prices when the chips were released. Furthermore to match the Voodoo 5's FSAA abilities they had to provide the same amount of memory.... > >Does a .18u GTS core cost twice as much as a .25u VSA100? > >dunno, but I SINCERELY doubt it. Well glad a little doubt is creeping in there I was beginning to think it was as hopeless talking to you as it is talking to that Keystone character.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> >So, is it more "efficient" to use twice as much memory? >> >> Seeing as how the Geforce also had to use 64mb of memory to compete in >> FSAA I would say that yes it was the minimum required for the features >> offered. That defines efficient. > >hehehe....you should be a politician. That was a laughable spin job.

Yes but using Keystones method it is a FACT. Matter of fact its true to achieve the same features they did have to use the same amount of memory. >okay man. Believe what you want. If you honestly think that a VSA is half >as expensive as a GTS core, and if you honestly think that DDR is twice as >expensive as SDR, then you are lying to yourself. No what I believe is that it was a terrific way to achieve their goals of x4 FSAA at the lowest expense. Where I went wrong is strictly comparing it to the Geforce 2 32mb...when indeed it should be compared to the 64mb Nvidia card since thats the only one that can do comparable FSAA...mind you only in speed not in quality. And to forstall any attempt to say that FSAA doesnt matter Nvidia is claiming that the NV-20 is gonna do FSAA alot better... neato finally. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

You are like a pin-ball bouncing from one of your facts to another.... > >It was foresight on the part of nVidia where no developers will support a >non-existent feature. Forsight/hindsight/sidesight matters not...efficient it wasnt/isnt. That FEATURE (that still isnt being used) cost alot of money to the people Nvidia supposedly serves...the customer. That is the definition of inefficient...thats a FACT! >If they had not pushed forth with such a feature >laden GPU then we would have to wait for another company to jerk the >industry's interest for OUR own eventual benefit. Give credit where credit >is due. Perhaps perhaps not....I would say that its more than a year after Nvidia promised TnL enabled titles were coming out and we still dont see any compelling use of it. Expensive feature not used...inefficient...FACT. > >Yes, marketing can always play a large portion in the decision to add new >technology, even when such technology won't yet provide an immediate result >for the end user. Yes and useless as a tit on a boar hog journalists are supposed to exist to prevent stupid shit like that from happening. But all those miserable shits were too busy fawning over the new technology like school boys looking at a Vette with a L-88 in it...when none of them have a license to drive. They directly led alot of people into buying cards that demanded a premium but still havent paid out on that premium...and truth is the Geforce 256 owners were just bent over the kitchen table and used as fodder to get the TnL engine marketed because those guys have a card that really wont allow them to see TnL in action...and yet they were led to believe it would by sad shit journalists. > >TnL, is and was hardly some phantom spin job that solely exists to cheat >people out if their money Yea one day it will be useful. I predict that widespread use will be just in time for the Rampage 2 and Nv-25 chips....sadly the Geforce users will find that their cards just arent quite good enough. And useless bits on a video card like TnL GPU's are the definition of inefficient. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a21297c.154690828@news...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Well then.... > > > > >Well, it actually *is* dated, by your own admission > > Fine then by your own admission the Geforce 2 Ultra is even MORE dated > since it is essentially the same chip as what was released October 99.

It's a smaller die size that has consistently been beefed up since its introduction into the GTS 2 Ultra. For a year not a single change has occured to the VSA-100. Papa, your arguments are appearing rather silly now. > >It was supposed to be released last year for X-Mas in time to challengethe > >GeForce DDr. > >So...uh...it *is* dated.> > >Obsolete? No, I'll disagree entirely. > > The Geforce 256 was released last October...the Ultra is basically the > same chip. The only difference being the reduction from .22 to .18 Yes, that's quite an advancement in cost saving along with increasing the potential clock speeds per chip. An evolution of a chipset that increases demand and profits with each new release, without a competitor being very close.... 3dfx as a company is hurting? Hmmm, I'm guessing that you're still wondering why. > >It's architecture is wasteful and inefficient in some ways, however. > >It requires 2 chips to be competitive. I love my 5500, but let's be > >realistic. It'd be nice if it performed the way it does as a singlechip.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >It would also be nice if it didn't require 64MB of RAM to get 32MB of > >texture memory. > > Why would it be nice...? What you are not getting because you to > believe the hype and bullshit of people with just enough knowledge to > be dangerous is that its the way the V5 is built that makes it what it > is.

Hype? It's simple common sense that such a design is costing 3dfx money. Again I'll repeat that this is no longer the days when 3dfx was the true leader where even a sinlge Voodoo2 card could mop the competition. It's SLI feature was then just an added bonus the further enforced their dominance in the market. Their scalable architecture is only successfully marketable to OEMs if a single one of the chipsets is competative rather than the expense of two (and double the memory) just to compete against a single chip solution from the competition. > Here is a quote from Scott Sellers: > The best way to think about how the Voodoo5 family of boards work is a > �divide and conquer� approach. The important thing to remember is that > regardless of whether FSAA is enabled or not, the multi-chip boards > will always perform better than the single chip boards. The guy is wrong. "Always"? BS. Are you ignorant enough to believe that the market and competition is static? Spin-doctoring Papa.... Your defense of a dated dual GPU and double the memory design is now non-existent for the VSA-100 based Voodoo5s.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >The ONLY way that the 5500 can be as cheap to produce as a GTS is if the > >following 2 statements are true: > >1) A GTS core costs >= 2x as much as a VSA > >2) DDR costs >=2x as much as SDR > > > >Now then, I honestly don't know how much a GTS or a VSA core costs. I DO > >know that a GTS core is identical to a GeForce core, except that it is a > >smaller process and a higher clockspeed. That alone makes it cheaper > >(smaller fab process, .22u to .18u) > > And more difficult to manufacture exactly because of its higher > clockspeed....read more expensive

No. How can you be so silly to even use this argument when it was common public knowledge of 3dfx's rotten yields forced the delay to market for their Voodoo5????? nVidia's fabrication process has been more successful and this can probably be attributed to their more efficient R&D. > >We DO know that DDR is NOT twice as expensive as SDR. Therefore, thereis > >ABSOLUTELY NO WAY a GTS can cost as much to produce as a 5500, whichneeds > >double the memory and twice as many cores. > > Really how do we know this..? Well, DUH, yes we do know this. A Voodoo5 "needs double the memory and twice as many cores".... DDR modules are definitely not double the expense of their SDRAM kin. I forgot where I saw the quote recently, but I think it was a micron manager that had stated that initially for consumer the DDR DIMS will only cost 10-20% more for their DDR ready mainboards. > >Also, let's not even get into chip yields, since the 5500 requires TWICEthe > >yield. > > It requires twice as many chips of nearly half the amount of > transistors on an easier to manufactor chip because of much lower > clock speed and older technology. It's nearly just as expensive if not more so to manufacture these chipsets in the same fabrication plant as nVidia!!! Please, get that through your thick skull. A larger fabricated die is LESS cost efficient to manufacture than once high yields of a smaller die has been reached. The success of this being attributed to a company's R&D. > >2x14 million = 28 million > > > >those 23 million transistors of the nvidia (on a process that is about30% > >smaller) DO NOT cost twice as much as those larger VSA transistors. > > Really provide evidence to support this aside from speculation. Common sense... Something that a true zealot of yourself is opting to lack. > >Does DDR cost twice as much as SDR? Nope. > > Ah well you have no proof of that as well. Remember that you cannot > provide prices of the market now but prices when the chips were > released. Furthermore to match the Voodoo 5's FSAA abilities they had > to provide the same amount of memory.... FALSE! The FSAA performance of nVidia chipsets is due to a weaker design within their own chipsets. It's not the lack of memory. If 64MB is available for a Geforce based card then the justification is for LARGER texture rendering at 32-bit colour depths. This is a TRUE 64MB based card, rather than a Voodoo5 with 64MB on board but effectively being only half the amount -- not providing the same amount of memory.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > >Does a .18u GTS core cost twice as much as a .25u VSA100? > > > >dunno, but I SINCERELY doubt it. > > Well glad a little doubt is creeping in there I was beginning to think > it was as hopeless talking to you as it is talking to that Keystone > character.

I've been quite logical there Papa. Something that this post is proving you to be sincerely lacking in...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >> >So, is it more "efficient" to use twice as much memory? > >> > >> Seeing as how the Geforce also had to use 64mb of memory to compete in > >> FSAA I would say that yes it was the minimum required for the features > >> offered. That defines efficient. > > > >hehehe....you should be a politician. That was a laughable spin job. > > Yes but using Keystones method it is a FACT. Matter of fact its true > to achieve the same features they did have to use the same amount of > memory.

No. Not fact. The on board 64MB of each of these cards DOES not exists for their FSAA performance. 64MB of memory exists on the Voodoo5 simply due to anything less than a 32MB (half of 64MB...) card is not very effective at the memory intensive 32-bit colour rendering. I've stated the reasoning for more than 64MB on a Geforce based card -- superior texturing capacities. > >okay man. Believe what you want. If you honestly think that a VSA ishalf > >as expensive as a GTS core, and if you honestly think that DDR is twiceas > >expensive as SDR, then you are lying to yourself. > > No what I believe is that it was a terrific way to achieve their goals > of x4 FSAA at the lowest expense. In this specific area it was the chipset design for the VSA-100 -- not the memory.

All this argument of "efficiency" is over my head. Who cares? From reading the posts 3Dfx vs. Nvidia over the last several months, it seemed clear to me that for sims, 3Dfx with FSAA was better, for 1st person shooters the Nvidia was better. As I am only interested in sims (these are sim newsgroups), as soon as it appeared that the Voodoo 6000 cards were not coming, I replaced my NVidia TNT Ultra Maxigamer and two 12 Meg Voodoo cards with a 3Dfx Voodoo5. Once I got everything working, I was pleased. MS Combat Flight Simulator looks and runs great. Efficient? I don't know, and don't care. It seems to me that the development costs and to a lessor extent the component costs are not what determines price; it's quantity sold and competition. I suspect that the amortized price per unit of any of these cards is a small fraction of what we pay to buy one. Just my $.02 Bill Yowell Pierre Legrand wrote:

Quoted text (57 lines)

> > You are like a pin-ball bouncing from one of your facts to another.... > > > > >It was foresight on the part of nVidia where no developers will support a > >non-existent feature. > > Forsight/hindsight/sidesight matters not...efficient it wasnt/isnt. > That FEATURE (that still isnt being used) cost alot of money to the > people Nvidia supposedly serves...the customer. That is the definition > of inefficient...thats a FACT! > > >If they had not pushed forth with such a feature > >laden GPU then we would have to wait for another company to jerk the > >industry's interest for OUR own eventual benefit. Give credit where credit > >is due. > > Perhaps perhaps not....I would say that its more than a year after > Nvidia promised TnL enabled titles were coming out and we still dont > see any compelling use of it. Expensive feature not > used...inefficient...FACT. > > > > >Yes, marketing can always play a large portion in the decision to add new > >technology, even when such technology won't yet provide an immediate result > >for the end user. > > Yes and useless as a tit on a boar hog journalists are supposed to > exist to prevent stupid shit like that from happening. But all those > miserable shits were too busy fawning over the new technology like > school boys looking at a Vette with a L-88 in it...when none of them > have a license to drive. They directly led alot of people into buying > cards that demanded a premium but still havent paid out on that > premium...and truth is the Geforce 256 owners were just bent over the > kitchen table and used as fodder to get the TnL engine marketed > because those guys have a card that really wont allow them to see TnL > in action...and yet they were led to believe it would by sad shit > journalists. > > > > >TnL, is and was hardly some phantom spin job that solely exists to cheat > >people out if their money > > Yea one day it will be useful. I predict that widespread use will be > just in time for the Rampage 2 and Nv-25 chips....sadly the Geforce > users will find that their cards just arent quite good enough. > > And useless bits on a video card like TnL GPU's are the definition of > inefficient. > > PAPA DOC > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Flanker Target > Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy > Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at > www.papadoc.net

"Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:62aU5.42709$[email hidden]... > Gonzo wrote in message <_V1U5.19901$[email hidden]>... > >"Greg Cisko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:iO%T5.41308$[email hidden]... > >> > >> Gonzo wrote in message<1wVT5.20611$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >> >I could ask you the same question anyhow, now couldn't I? > >> > > >> >Why do you care what I care? Hence, why did YOU post? > >> > >> > >> Because it is my destiny. > > > >What are you? A fucking Jedi Knight or something? > > Around here yes. Who in the hell are you anyway? The last I heard > you were on seasame street.

Luke.....I AM YOUR FATHER!

No no no!!! I'm thoroughly enjoying Papa D rip this nvidiot to shreds! Please go on... ;) "FACT: FSAA does not sell cards." Hahaha!! It just occured to me this guy has never actually SEEN a V5 FSAA in action! Have you ever laughed so hard that you shoot snot out your mouth?! "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mtET5.17460$[email hidden]... > > Well since nobody else is participating except you and him, perhaps you > could move this to email...eh...?

"Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lvDT5.695192$[email hidden]... > > Oops, I meant this in reference to FPS games. > You DO know where you are...right pal?

"William Yowell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > All this argument of "efficiency" is over my head. Who > cares? From reading the posts 3Dfx vs. Nvidia over the last > several months, it seemed clear to me that for sims, 3Dfx > with FSAA was better, for 1st person shooters the Nvidia was > better. By continuing in the poor design and R&D direction that 3dfx has taken the point is that this company won't remain competitive if survive at all much longer. The true failings of the VSA-100 equipped Voodoo5 and Voodoo4 are a very clear indication of just how poorly this company has faired over the past year as we've seen nVidia and to a certain extent ATi leap ahead of them with OEM deals, technological features, and higher profits. For all of you 3dfx fans out there you'd better get a little more critically vocal than remain apathetic cheerleaders, ignorantly watching your fav crash and burn...

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a2131ae.156789669@news...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> You are like a pin-ball bouncing from one of your facts to another.... > > > > >It was foresight on the part of nVidia where no developers will support a > >non-existent feature. > > Forsight/hindsight/sidesight matters not...efficient it wasnt/isnt. > That FEATURE (that still isnt being used) cost alot of money to the > people Nvidia supposedly serves...the customer. That is the definition > of inefficient...thats a FACT!

'Ol pinko flamingo believes that the IT/Entertainment industry ought to remain static to better suit his own definition of inefficiency: "Don't add any more features that actually requires programmers to make use of!!! Oh no... We the consumer demand to make every use of such techno widgets right now! Don't cheat us!!! 32-bit rendering??? Well what use is such an inefficient feature if my card is too slow and my games don't support it?! Don't waste my money! 16MB of memory on a card is all we need! Stencil-buffering??? My damn games don't show no cool volumetric shadows! What a waste! Bump-mapping??? Cool, but it's of no use with the titles I play with! TnL through my GPU??! Say what??? What BS is this after I've paid for my super-duper AMtel CPU with its funky routines that were designed just for such graphic designs. AMtel knows what's best for me, not some fringe video gaggle. T-Buffer, depth of field, and motion blurring... Uh wait, naw these cool features are truly efficient because 3dfx gave them to us. Yeah I know no one is using them now but they will!! 3dfx are the gods of efficiency. .......these were previously unknown personal and luddism thoughts running through 'ol Papa Doc's head.

Really is that what I said....??? >'Ol pinko flamingo believes that the IT/Entertainment industry ought to >remain static to better suit his own definition of inefficiency: Or did I say that having features on a card that no one uses is inefficient. Remember I wasnt the one who started out making pronouncements about inefficiencies in cards. > >"Don't add any more features that actually requires programmers to make use >of!!! Oh no... We the consumer demand to make every use of such techno >widgets right now! Don't cheat us!!! You have a hard time keeping all these points on your head flowing in the right direction. In a strict discussion about what is efficient and what isnt you cannot deny that having a feature on a card that isnt used is inefficient...well I guess you can but a rational person cannot. It may be a wonderful idea but if it isnt used its inefficient. Again I didnt raise the issue about whats efficient..you did. > >32-bit rendering??? Well what use is such an inefficient feature if my card >is too slow and my games don't support it?! Don't waste my money! 16MB of >memory on a card is all we need! Yea that was a valuable feature...the Geforce 64mb is just about able to deliver that...I find it strange that you dont complain about how slow it is on a Geforce or Voodoo 5 since it slows things down. With the TnT's it definitely wouldnt have met your standard for speed....and yet you find FSAA to be no valuable and 32bit to be valuable. >TnL through my GPU??! Say what??? What BS is this after I've paid for my >super-duper AMtel CPU with its funky routines that were designed just for >such graphic designs. AMtel knows what's best for me, not some fringe video >gaggle. You may at your leisure list the titles that are released that use this feature. > >T-Buffer, depth of field, and motion blurring... Uh wait, naw these cool >features are truly efficient because 3dfx gave them to us. Yeah I know no >one is using them now but they will!! 3dfx are the gods of efficiency. Nope never said that...what I said/say is FSAA is alot cooler than TnL GPU right now and if a company is gonna do one thing brilliantly then do FSAA. No denying that someone had to do GPU's and am glad that Nvidia did...this doesnt mean that I will buy it, nor does it mean that it is efficient. It just means that Im grateful for them to have gotten the ball rolling and in a way Im grateful for all the people who bought the card over the last year....thanks guys. In another six months because of your efforts I will get to play TnL titles...by that time both Nvidia and 3dfx will have fantastic cards availible for actual titles. Until then I will keep playing all my games with FSAA .... PAPA DOC

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > >.......these were previously unknown personal and luddism thoughts running >through 'ol Papa Doc's head. > > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

No one is denying that 3dfx missed the boat by missing the ship date... > >but the Ultra wasn't supposed to be relesaed last christmas, and the 5500 >was. big difference. I believe that the point is the VSA-100 is dated...now I guess we should have decided what is considered new. To me it means a new chip design...the NV-20 is a new chip perhaps. The P-II to P-III is a new chip to me. I concede that of course going to a faster chip is also generally considered a new chip. > >so you'd prefer the SLI setup requiring 64MB of RAM to a "5500" that got >IDENTICAL performance to one that had one chip and 32MB of RAM? > I prefer a design that gives me what Im looking for...x4 FSAA of the two cards that cost the same the Voodoo 5 was a better choice. Even you agree with that.... >> And more difficult to manufacture exactly because of its higher >> clockspeed....read more expensive > >the clockspeed obviously wasn't that hard to managae, since the GTS-Ultra is >being released @ 250 Mhz. The only thing holding it back is the RAM. Well no its getting easier...just as manufactoring 1ghz chips is also getting easier...people learn. But its expensive while they learn. > >the .18u process allows for 200 Mhz pretty easily. Judging from the 37 >companies that have saturated the market with GTS cards, I really don't >think nvidia is having problems with "difficult to manufacture" chips. >their yields are incredible. Nope sooner or later they will get faster yet...but the fact remains that for a time its a difficult thing to manufactor. Or everyone would just release 1ghz chips right off.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > >> >We DO know that DDR is NOT twice as expensive as SDR. Therefore, there >> > is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY a GTS can cost as much to produce as a 5500, which >> > needs double the memory and twice as many cores. >> >> Really how do we know this..? > >DDr isn't priced twice as high as SDR. that's how.

Quotes please on the DDR that Nvidia is using...I have been following the DDR story for a bit cause Im planning on outfitting a motherboard with it. I would be interested in quotes on the ram that Nvidia is using with the speeds recommended. >they don't match the 5500's FSAA abilities, IMHO. Not that it mattesr in >this discussion. Of course it matters in this discussion. Thats the entire discussion. I have no quarrel with anyone saying that 3dfx made some mistakes by manufactoring their own cards...or that they should have released their cards last Christmas. But I do have a quarrel with anyone saying that the design sucks...the fact that 3dfx's FSAA is terrific is testimony to the goodness of the design. All of this started with me quarreling over a layman trying to regurgitate bullshit about how bad the design was. Im a layman too...no doubt but if I have seen both cards perform and decided that one cards images are that much better and that its stability is that much better than Im gonna be hardpressed to believe that in the face of all that evidence its a bad design. >You're just not being logical. IF you can find the manufacturing prices for >both chips, then great. Please let me know. > No you are just being argumentative...dont worry I know I am as well but I get alot from this sort of thing since it forces me to look at different angles. I should point out that you dont have the prices either so until then I will believe that you are as well illogical. >I would think that common sense and logic would be enuf. Yes so would I...when will you relent..? >hey, I gave keystone a kick to the shins, too. Dont' confuse my ramblings >with his ramblings. <g> > Odd they seemed vaguely similar...... > >it was the most easily available way to them, I'll agree. They already >understood the basics of SLI technology, but getting it to work on a single >card may have been a bit more than they ahd planned for. I dont have a broad knowledge of professional cards but I do seem to remember that they also load chips onto their cards. PAPA DOC > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

"Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Keystone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:lvDT5.695192$[email hidden]... > > > > Oops, I meant this in reference to FPS games. > > > > You DO know where you are...right pal?

Of course I do, and I also have the grasp of our inconsequential portion within the whole market place. Simmers will not keep a company such as 3dfx alive. >No no no!!! I'm thoroughly enjoying Papa D rip this nvidiot to shreds! Pardon me? Is your comprehension so critically challenged to not have read in multiple posts that both of my systems have 3dfx video cards? It's also clearly gone way over your head that my (and others) strong criticisms against 3dfx are well founded? Though, little kiddies like you are usually too dim to read the content within debates and would rather gleefully gock at potential blood and name-calling. Whoop-dee-doo..