Re: NVidea vs 3DFx vs NEW KID!!!! (ATI RADEON)

You can really tell when someone hasn't actually experienced 3dfx's FSAA for themselves. Thanks, but I'll leave T&L duties up to the SSE instructions which perform the T&L functions much faster than the Geforce T&L deccerlator. Those other options should be great in 2-3 more years. -Tim "Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:U0Wm5.19128$[email hidden]... > Alex, do you actually believe this yourself? In fact your description fits > 3DFX more than NVidea and ATI (the lowering production price part). Both > those cards have some serious advanved hardware on it. Unlike the Voodoo 5 > 5500 that is made up of 2 chips with 32mb a piece. I don't know what the > compatibility is like right now, but I do know it's going to improve quitea > bit. All game designers use those two cards. > > Just go through the Radeon features, it's really quite special. I've beena > big 3DFX supporter until NVivea released the Geforce and 3DFX wasn't ableto

Quoted text (11 lines)

> respond. The V5 5500 is slower than the 'old' Geforce in many aspects, and > with the new drivers the FSAA performance is very good. It doesn't look as > good as the 3DFX's, but FSAA is also the only real usable feature the > Voodoo5 offers. > > Some people tend to forget that the only reason why 3DFX's FSAA is so > popular because it can be used with games that weren't developed for it. > While T&L and all the Radeon features need new developed games. But it was > exactly the same when the 3d accelerator first came out. And now everybody > has it. > We have to respect companies that try to set new limits, they're setting

new > standards and so their compatibility will come. Just give them some time, > just like we gave 3DFX.

> There's more to life than FSAA, both the Geforce as the Radeon are farmore > advanced products. More advanced in lowering production price and maximizing profits for the respective hardware manufacturer - yes. More advanced in giving maximum performance and best compatibility in most games for the customer - no.

New kid on the block is the ATI RADEON....... It's a baaaaaaaaad mutha! (Ya' might wanna think RADEON before you think Voodoo 5 or GeForce). -Cheers!

On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 07:18:18 -0700, "Regular Racer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > New kid on the block is the ATI RADEON....... >It's a baaaaaaaaad mutha! >(Ya' might wanna think RADEON before you think Voodoo 5 or GeForce). >Ya' might not if you look at the benchmarks. Andrew.

"Regular Racer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > (Ya' might wanna think RADEON before you think Voodoo 5 > or GeForce). Same old tacked-on OGSS FSAA, thanks, but, no thanks. Until another manufacturer implements RGSS FSAA (can you imagine a GeForce 2 Ultra running with RGSS FSAA?) I'm sticking with 3dfx. - George

Here's some more Radeon information Has new technologies the other cards don't -Advance Vertex Skinning -KeyFrame Interpolation -1.5 Gigatexel fill rate -250mhz core clock -Pixel Tapestry triple-texture dual-pipeline rendering -Support for DirectX 8's pixel shader effects -ATI is also claiming full-scene anti-aliasing support as well as motion-blur and depth of field effects. There you have it! ---->http://www.gamepc.com/article/show_article.asp?article=radeon256&pa ge=1 "Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:U0Wm5.19128$[email hidden]... > Alex, do you actually believe this yourself? In fact your description fits > 3DFX more than NVidea and ATI (the lowering production price part). Both > those cards have some serious advanved hardware on it. Unlike the Voodoo 5 > 5500 that is made up of 2 chips with 32mb a piece. I don't know what the > compatibility is like right now, but I do know it's going to improve quitea > bit. All game designers use those two cards. > > Just go through the Radeon features, it's really quite special. I've beena > big 3DFX supporter until NVivea released the Geforce and 3DFX wasn't ableto

Quoted text (11 lines)

> respond. The V5 5500 is slower than the 'old' Geforce in many aspects, and > with the new drivers the FSAA performance is very good. It doesn't look as > good as the 3DFX's, but FSAA is also the only real usable feature the > Voodoo5 offers. > > Some people tend to forget that the only reason why 3DFX's FSAA is so > popular because it can be used with games that weren't developed for it. > While T&L and all the Radeon features need new developed games. But it was > exactly the same when the 3d accelerator first came out. And now everybody > has it. > We have to respect companies that try to set new limits, they're setting

new

Quoted text (13 lines)

> standards and so their compatibility will come. Just give them some time, > just like we gave 3DFX. > > > > > "Alexander Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8nh9ef$8llkl$[email hidden]... > > > There's more to life than FSAA, both the Geforce as the Radeon are far > > more > > > advanced products. > > > > More advanced in lowering production price and maximizing profits for

the > > respective hardware manufacturer - yes. > > > > More advanced in giving maximum performance and best compatibility inmost > > games for the customer - no. > > > > > >

On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:19:32 GMT, "Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >We have to respect companies that try to set new limits, they're setting new >standards and so their compatibility will come. Just give them some time, >just like we gave 3DFX. And you think 3DFX won't have a T&L engine out one of these days? Don't make assumptions. I'll buy a card with T&L when I need it. For now FSAA is where it's at. -- Nos

There's more to life than FSAA, both the Geforce as the Radeon are far more advanced products. The Geforce2 is the fastest card around (after the new drivers) and the Radeon offers a lot of potential with all its gimmicks. "George M. Smiley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6mTm5.1$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > "Regular Racer" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > (Ya' might wanna think RADEON before you think Voodoo 5 > > or GeForce). > > Same old tacked-on OGSS FSAA, thanks, but, no thanks. Until > another manufacturer implements RGSS FSAA (can you imagine > a GeForce 2 Ultra running with RGSS FSAA?) I'm sticking with > 3dfx. > > - George > > > >

"Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote: > There's more to life than FSAA, both the Geforce as the > Radeon are far more advanced products. The Geforce2 > is the fastest card around (after the new drivers) and > the Radeon offers a lot of potential with all its gimmicks. I don't want gimmicks, what I want is a good RGSS FSAA implementation as I will *NEVER* play another simulation without it. Having experienced it (have you?) it has become an essential feature. Indeed I can't wait until hardware moves beyond RGSS at rates of 2 - 4 samples per pixel to advanced forms of stochastic sampling at rates of 16 - 32 samples per pixel. This isn't a matter of company loyalty or justifying dollars spent (plenty more where those came from), it is a simply that damn good. - George

Alex, do you actually believe this yourself? In fact your description fits 3DFX more than NVidea and ATI (the lowering production price part). Both those cards have some serious advanved hardware on it. Unlike the Voodoo 5 5500 that is made up of 2 chips with 32mb a piece. I don't know what the compatibility is like right now, but I do know it's going to improve quite a bit. All game designers use those two cards. Just go through the Radeon features, it's really quite special. I've been a big 3DFX supporter until NVivea released the Geforce and 3DFX wasn't able to respond. The V5 5500 is slower than the 'old' Geforce in many aspects, and with the new drivers the FSAA performance is very good. It doesn't look as good as the 3DFX's, but FSAA is also the only real usable feature the Voodoo5 offers. Some people tend to forget that the only reason why 3DFX's FSAA is so popular because it can be used with games that weren't developed for it. While T&L and all the Radeon features need new developed games. But it was exactly the same when the 3d accelerator first came out. And now everybody has it. We have to respect companies that try to set new limits, they're setting new standards and so their compatibility will come. Just give them some time, just like we gave 3DFX. "Alexander Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8nh9ef$8llkl$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > There's more to life than FSAA, both the Geforce as the Radeon are far > more > > advanced products. > > More advanced in lowering production price and maximizing profits for the > respective hardware manufacturer - yes. > > More advanced in giving maximum performance and best compatibility in most > games for the customer - no. > >

come on guys, never play another simulation without FSAA? Give me a break, I thought we played these sims for the driving experience? So you go to a LAN tourney, your going to say.. sorry guys I don't play without FSAA anymore. C'mon give me a break! As long as the card is fast enough to give all the essential features like good smoke, weather, and things that have to do with actual gameplay, does it really matter that much? Now I can see someone saying, I'll never buy another video card without FSAA, but for how many times I've heard people say they'll never play another game without it is a joke. George M. Smiley <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1BXm5.34$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> > "Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > There's more to life than FSAA, both the Geforce as the > > Radeon are far more advanced products. The Geforce2 > > is the fastest card around (after the new drivers) and > > the Radeon offers a lot of potential with all its gimmicks. > > I don't want gimmicks, what I want is a good RGSS FSAA > implementation as I will *NEVER* play another simulation > without it. Having experienced it (have you?) it has become > an essential feature. Indeed I can't wait until hardware moves > beyond RGSS at rates of 2 - 4 samples per pixel to advanced > forms of stochastic sampling at rates of 16 - 32 samples > per pixel. > > This isn't a matter of company loyalty or justifying dollars > spent (plenty more where those came from), it is a simply > that damn good. > > - George > > >

"Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote: > come on guys, never play another simulation without FSAA? > Give me a break, I thought we played these sims for the > driving experience? Exactly, and shimmering textures, jagged edges, and pixel popping diminishes the driving experience as none of those 'effects' occurs in the real world. It is all about suspension of disbelief and now that I have played sims with RGSS FSAA enabled when I go back and play them without it I just can't immerse myself in the sim to the same degree. Ditto to a lesser extent playing a game with OGSS FSAA enabled. I am, however, more than happy to play twitch games without RGSS FSAA enabled. > So you go to a LAN tourney, your going to say.. sorry guys > I don't play without FSAA anymore. On that rare as in yet to ever happen occurence I'll say 'can I bring my own video card?'. > C'mon give me a break! Why so stunned about another person's opinion? > As long as the card is fast enough to give all the essential > features like good smoke, weather, and things that have to > do with actual gameplay, does it really matter that much? I just told you that I consider it an essential feature, so yes it really matters that much to me. > Now I can see someone saying, I'll never buy another video > card without FSAA, but for how many times I've heard people > say they'll never play another game without it is a joke. For some people the two statements are equivalent. I don't go to LAN parties, I don't go to arcades (that is what MAME is for), and I don't play games on other people's systems. - George

That might be right, I've heard it quite some times. But maybe it's even more because I just bought a Geforce2, and we all tend to support what we buy, don't we? "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > You can really tell when someone hasn't actually experienced 3dfx's FSAAfor > themselves. > > Thanks, but I'll leave T&L duties up to the SSE instructions which perform > the T&L functions much faster than the Geforce T&L deccerlator. Thoseother

Quoted text (7 lines)

> options should be great in 2-3 more years. > > -Tim > > "Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:U0Wm5.19128$[email hidden]... > > Alex, do you actually believe this yourself? In fact your description

fits > > 3DFX more than NVidea and ATI (the lowering production price part). Both > > those cards have some serious advanved hardware on it. Unlike the Voodoo5 > > 5500 that is made up of 2 chips with 32mb a piece. I don't know what the > > compatibility is like right now, but I do know it's going to improvequite > a > > bit. All game designers use those two cards. > > > > Just go through the Radeon features, it's really quite special. I'vebeen > a > > big 3DFX supporter until NVivea released the Geforce and 3DFX wasn'table > to > > respond. The V5 5500 is slower than the 'old' Geforce in many aspects,and > > with the new drivers the FSAA performance is very good. It doesn't lookas > > good as the 3DFX's, but FSAA is also the only real usable feature the > > Voodoo5 offers. > > > > Some people tend to forget that the only reason why 3DFX's FSAA is so > > popular because it can be used with games that weren't developed for it. > > While T&L and all the Radeon features need new developed games. But itwas > > exactly the same when the 3d accelerator first came out. And noweverybody > > has it. > > We have to respect companies that try to set new limits, they're setting > new > > standards and so their compatibility will come. Just give them sometime, > > just like we gave 3DFX. > > >

Wow, video card wars on ras. My advice to anyone is "never say never" in that something better always comes along. Right now, however, I'm loving my v5. FSAA is sweet as candy (4x especially, it looks so good in GPL). The v5 is a bit weak on the fill rate--i get a bit annoyed that i can't play nascar heat at 1024x768x4aa. Still, the 3dfx pr guys are right: once you've played certain games with fsaa it is mighty hard to go back. Chris On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:05:31 -0500, "George M. Smiley" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (49 lines)

> >"Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> come on guys, never play another simulation without FSAA? >> Give me a break, I thought we played these sims for the >> driving experience? > >Exactly, and shimmering textures, jagged edges, and pixel >popping diminishes the driving experience as none of those >'effects' occurs in the real world. > >It is all about suspension of disbelief and now that I have >played sims with RGSS FSAA enabled when I go back and >play them without it I just can't immerse myself in the sim >to the same degree. Ditto to a lesser extent playing a >game with OGSS FSAA enabled. > >I am, however, more than happy to play twitch games >without RGSS FSAA enabled. > >> So you go to a LAN tourney, your going to say.. sorry guys >> I don't play without FSAA anymore. > >On that rare as in yet to ever happen occurence I'll say 'can I >bring my own video card?'. > >> C'mon give me a break! > >Why so stunned about another person's opinion? > >> As long as the card is fast enough to give all the essential >> features like good smoke, weather, and things that have to >> do with actual gameplay, does it really matter that much? > >I just told you that I consider it an essential feature, so yes >it really matters that much to me. > >> Now I can see someone saying, I'll never buy another video >> card without FSAA, but for how many times I've heard people >> say they'll never play another game without it is a joke. > >For some people the two statements are equivalent. I don't go >to LAN parties, I don't go to arcades (that is what MAME is for), >and I don't play games on other people's systems. > > - George > > >

I just disagree that eye candy is so important, I'd take a game with N1 graphics with perfect physics over the ones in NH... FSAA is just eye candy. What if for some reason, a game crashed when FSAA was enabled, but totally realistically simulated everything perfectly and had graphics like NH, you wouldn't play it? Ok I won't ever race a sim with resolutions lower than 640x640 as it's too hard to see distance. George M. Smiley <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KnYm5.494$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (49 lines)

> > "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > come on guys, never play another simulation without FSAA? > > Give me a break, I thought we played these sims for the > > driving experience? > > Exactly, and shimmering textures, jagged edges, and pixel > popping diminishes the driving experience as none of those > 'effects' occurs in the real world. > > It is all about suspension of disbelief and now that I have > played sims with RGSS FSAA enabled when I go back and > play them without it I just can't immerse myself in the sim > to the same degree. Ditto to a lesser extent playing a > game with OGSS FSAA enabled. > > I am, however, more than happy to play twitch games > without RGSS FSAA enabled. > > > So you go to a LAN tourney, your going to say.. sorry guys > > I don't play without FSAA anymore. > > On that rare as in yet to ever happen occurence I'll say 'can I > bring my own video card?'. > > > C'mon give me a break! > > Why so stunned about another person's opinion? > > > As long as the card is fast enough to give all the essential > > features like good smoke, weather, and things that have to > > do with actual gameplay, does it really matter that much? > > I just told you that I consider it an essential feature, so yes > it really matters that much to me. > > > Now I can see someone saying, I'll never buy another video > > card without FSAA, but for how many times I've heard people > > say they'll never play another game without it is a joke. > > For some people the two statements are equivalent. I don't go > to LAN parties, I don't go to arcades (that is what MAME is for), > and I don't play games on other people's systems. > > - George > > >

"Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote: > I just disagree that eye candy is so important, I'd take > a game with N1 graphics with perfect physics over the > ones in NH... Comparing apples to oranges, I would take a game with N1 graphics and RGSS FSAA over a game with N1 graphics and no RGSS FSAA. In fact I would no longer bother to play the later. As a real world example let us consider the ICR2 converted tracks for GPL. Tried them with a Voodoo3, couldn't play them for longer than 30 minutes without developing a serious headache and blurry vision. Bought a V5, now race them for hours on end. Wouldn't consider going back to the old way. > FSAA is just eye candy. When do 3D accelerator features stop becoming eye candy and start becoming essential features? How about MIP-mapping? Texture filtering? Gouraud shading? Perspective correction? Hmm, time to boot up F1GP, nice flat shaded polygons. Gone are those granulated GP3 textures! Oh wait, what am I thinking? 3D objects are just eye-candy, maybe I should try Pole Position. Damn sprites, all this eye candy is getting in the way. Hmm, perhaps GPL with my monitor turned off would do the trick? > What if for some reason, a game crashed when FSAA was > enabled, but totally realistically simulated everything perfectly > and had graphics like NH, you wouldn't play it? Man, the only other way I can say it is slower - I will not play a sim without RGSS FSAA or the equivalent enabled. If your hypothetical game doesn't support it, then my dollars and time will go elsewhere. > Ok I won't ever race a sim with resolutions lower than > 640x640 as it's too hard to see distance. Hmm, a 1:1 aspect ratio sim might look funny on your 4:3 aspect monitor. Regardless, we are making progress. You won't play sims without a 3D accelerator feature <fillrate for 640 x 640> enabled/supported. Now replace <fillrate for 640 x 640> with <RGSS FSAA>. - George

Exactly right. Seeing FSAA is believing it. Either you love FSAA or you haven't seen it in action yet. I don't believe anyone can honestly say it's not a big improvement over jaggies and texture shimmering/rolling. Now it may not matter to someone who doesn't play sims but for simmers it's a critical improvement in smoothing out our gaming "world". Last time I checked, the real world had no jaggies. Well, except for serrated knives and hack saws ;-). -- Joe Marques Please remove "NO SPAM" to e-mail me. "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > You can really tell when someone hasn't actually experienced 3dfx's FSAA for > themselves. > > Thanks, but I'll leave T&L duties up to the SSE instructions which perform > the T&L functions much faster than the Geforce T&L deccerlator. Those other > options should be great in 2-3 more years. > > -Tim > > "Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:U0Wm5.19128$[email hidden]... > > Alex, do you actually believe this yourself? In fact your description fits > > 3DFX more than NVidea and ATI (the lowering production price part). Both > > those cards have some serious advanved hardware on it. Unlike the Voodoo 5 > > 5500 that is made up of 2 chips with 32mb a piece. I don't know what the > > compatibility is like right now, but I do know it's going to improve quite > a > > bit. All game designers use those two cards. > > > > Just go through the Radeon features, it's really quite special. I've been > a > > big 3DFX supporter until NVivea released the Geforce and 3DFX wasn't able > to > > respond. The V5 5500 is slower than the 'old' Geforce in many aspects, and > > with the new drivers the FSAA performance is very good. It doesn't look as > > good as the 3DFX's, but FSAA is also the only real usable feature the > > Voodoo5 offers. > > > > Some people tend to forget that the only reason why 3DFX's FSAA is so > > popular because it can be used with games that weren't developed for it. > > While T&L and all the Radeon features need new developed games. But it was > > exactly the same when the 3d accelerator first came out. And now everybody > > has it. > > We have to respect companies that try to set new limits, they're setting > new > > standards and so their compatibility will come. Just give them some time, > > just like we gave 3DFX. > > >

They forgot one *feature* absolute contempt for the customer in their released drivers....witness the nonsense of the ATI Rage. But then again so much has been published about the contempt of that company towards the gamers special needs in the form of drivers that work that I figure anyone who buys one deserves all the problems they will be getting. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (69 lines)

>Here's some more Radeon information > >Has new technologies the other cards don't >-Advance Vertex Skinning >-KeyFrame Interpolation >-1.5 Gigatexel fill rate >-250mhz core clock >-Pixel Tapestry triple-texture dual-pipeline rendering >-Support for DirectX 8's pixel shader effects >-ATI is also claiming full-scene anti-aliasing support as well as >motion-blur and depth of field effects. > >There you have >it! ---->http://www.gamepc.com/article/show_article.asp?article=radeon256&pa >ge=1 > > > >"Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:U0Wm5.19128$[email hidden]... >> Alex, do you actually believe this yourself? In fact your description fits >> 3DFX more than NVidea and ATI (the lowering production price part). Both >> those cards have some serious advanved hardware on it. Unlike the Voodoo 5 >> 5500 that is made up of 2 chips with 32mb a piece. I don't know what the >> compatibility is like right now, but I do know it's going to improve quite >a >> bit. All game designers use those two cards. >> >> Just go through the Radeon features, it's really quite special. I've been >a >> big 3DFX supporter until NVivea released the Geforce and 3DFX wasn't able >to >> respond. The V5 5500 is slower than the 'old' Geforce in many aspects, and >> with the new drivers the FSAA performance is very good. It doesn't look as >> good as the 3DFX's, but FSAA is also the only real usable feature the >> Voodoo5 offers. >> >> Some people tend to forget that the only reason why 3DFX's FSAA is so >> popular because it can be used with games that weren't developed for it. >> While T&L and all the Radeon features need new developed games. But it was >> exactly the same when the 3d accelerator first came out. And now everybody >> has it. >> We have to respect companies that try to set new limits, they're setting >new >> standards and so their compatibility will come. Just give them some time, >> just like we gave 3DFX. >> >> >> >> >> "Alexander Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:8nh9ef$8llkl$[email hidden]... >> > > There's more to life than FSAA, both the Geforce as the Radeon are far >> > more >> > > advanced products. >> > >> > More advanced in lowering production price and maximizing profits for >the >> > respective hardware manufacturer - yes. >> > >> > More advanced in giving maximum performance and best compatibility in >most >> > games for the customer - no. >> > >> > >> >> > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Voodoo 5 vs Geforce Shootout http://www.papadoc.net/Voodoo_vs_Geforce2.htm Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Aim-120 Propellent Addict Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...<VBG> Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

I would like to wholeheartedly DITTO this sentiment....hehe. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (17 lines)

> >I don't want gimmicks, what I want is a good RGSS FSAA >implementation as I will *NEVER* play another simulation >without it. Having experienced it (have you?) it has become >an essential feature. Indeed I can't wait until hardware moves >beyond RGSS at rates of 2 - 4 samples per pixel to advanced >forms of stochastic sampling at rates of 16 - 32 samples >per pixel. > >This isn't a matter of company loyalty or justifying dollars >spent (plenty more where those came from), it is a simply >that damn good. > > - George > > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Voodoo 5 vs Geforce Shootout http://www.papadoc.net/Voodoo_vs_Geforce2.htm Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Aim-120 Propellent Addict Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...<VBG> Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

I will say it now and forever that I will never play diddly squat without FSAA....never ever. The resolution cannot go high enough to eliminate the jaggies, swimming and popping pixels....and I have seen games without that crap and cannot go back. Nvidia thinks its purty damn important as well witness the absolute panicked scrambling to incorporate FSAA into their drivers....kind of funny to see a World Leading Video card company get caught so flat footed. Sort of reminds me of 3dfx scrambling around after missing their product release date last November. Sheesh just imagine the absolute terror that Nvidia would have faced had the V5 came out then.... PAPA DOC

Quoted text (40 lines)

>come on guys, never play another simulation without FSAA? Give me a break, I >thought we played these sims for the driving experience? So you go to a LAN >tourney, your going to say.. sorry guys I don't play without FSAA anymore. >C'mon give me a break! As long as the card is fast enough to give all the >essential features like good smoke, weather, and things that have to do with >actual gameplay, does it really matter that much? > >Now I can see someone saying, I'll never buy another video card without >FSAA, but for how many times I've heard people say they'll never play >another game without it is a joke. > > >George M. Smiley <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:1BXm5.34$[email hidden]... >> >> "Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> > There's more to life than FSAA, both the Geforce as the >> > Radeon are far more advanced products. The Geforce2 >> > is the fastest card around (after the new drivers) and >> > the Radeon offers a lot of potential with all its gimmicks. >> >> I don't want gimmicks, what I want is a good RGSS FSAA >> implementation as I will *NEVER* play another simulation >> without it. Having experienced it (have you?) it has become >> an essential feature. Indeed I can't wait until hardware moves >> beyond RGSS at rates of 2 - 4 samples per pixel to advanced >> forms of stochastic sampling at rates of 16 - 32 samples >> per pixel. >> >> This isn't a matter of company loyalty or justifying dollars >> spent (plenty more where those came from), it is a simply >> that damn good. >> >> - George >> >> >> > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Voodoo 5 vs Geforce Shootout http://www.papadoc.net/Voodoo_vs_Geforce2.htm Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Aim-120 Propellent Addict Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...<VBG> Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

I can understand that if non FSAA graphics give you serious headaches you might not want to go back. I don't see however how my comparisons are apples to oranges. I was saying it doesn't matter how the game looks as long as it drives well, FSAA DOES NOT effect the way the car drives. I usually forget about any graphical things within 2 minutes into the race, even things like really bad pop up just don't even become noticeable one I'm really into the race, I don't see how a little "pixel popping can be worse than the big arch at Laguna seca popping up in SCGT. George M. Smiley <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:BA%m5.107$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (55 lines)

> > "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > I just disagree that eye candy is so important, I'd take > > a game with N1 graphics with perfect physics over the > > ones in NH... > > Comparing apples to oranges, I would take a game with > N1 graphics and RGSS FSAA over a game with N1 graphics > and no RGSS FSAA. In fact I would no longer bother to > play the later. > > As a real world example let us consider the ICR2 converted > tracks for GPL. Tried them with a Voodoo3, couldn't play > them for longer than 30 minutes without developing a > serious headache and blurry vision. Bought a V5, now > race them for hours on end. Wouldn't consider going > back to the old way. > > > FSAA is just eye candy. > > When do 3D accelerator features stop becoming eye > candy and start becoming essential features? How > about MIP-mapping? Texture filtering? Gouraud > shading? Perspective correction? > > Hmm, time to boot up F1GP, nice flat shaded polygons. > Gone are those granulated GP3 textures! Oh wait, what > am I thinking? 3D objects are just eye-candy, maybe I > should try Pole Position. Damn sprites, all this eye candy > is getting in the way. Hmm, perhaps GPL with my > monitor turned off would do the trick? > > > What if for some reason, a game crashed when FSAA was > > enabled, but totally realistically simulated everything perfectly > > and had graphics like NH, you wouldn't play it? > > Man, the only other way I can say it is slower - I will not > play a sim without RGSS FSAA or the equivalent enabled. > If your hypothetical game doesn't support it, then my > dollars and time will go elsewhere. > > > Ok I won't ever race a sim with resolutions lower than > > 640x640 as it's too hard to see distance. > > Hmm, a 1:1 aspect ratio sim might look funny on your > 4:3 aspect monitor. Regardless, we are making progress. > You won't play sims without a 3D accelerator feature > <fillrate for 640 x 640> enabled/supported. Now replace > <fillrate for 640 x 640> with <RGSS FSAA>. > > - George > > >

Tim Miser <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > You can really tell when someone hasn't actually experienced 3dfx's FSAAfor > themselves. I have! and I'd have to say that *now* the GF2 GTS (6.18 drivers) has a better image and is faster at FSAA than the V5, Even the GF1 is faster at FSAA in MCM2 than my V5. But hey what ever takes your fancy . if you like 3dfx then buy a V5 if you want the fastest and a card that's slightly more future proofed, then buy a GF2 GTS

I think the thing to remember is that 3dfx really got popular because of all the initial problems with Microsoft and Direct 3d. Now that Microsoft has ironed out a lot of those (Direct 3d problems) you will see cards like the GeForce and Radeon pave the way to the future with the 3dfx products slowly falling the wayside. -Cheers! "Jason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:r_6n5.17734$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > Tim Miser <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > You can really tell when someone hasn't actually experienced 3dfx's FSAA > for > > themselves. > > I have! and I'd have to say that *now* the GF2 GTS (6.18 drivers) has a > better image and is faster at FSAA than the V5, Even the GF1 is faster at > FSAA in MCM2 than my V5. But hey what ever takes your fancy . if you like > 3dfx then buy a V5 if you want the fastest and a card that's slightly more > future proofed, then buy a GF2 GTS > >

Total rubbish. I've owned both a V5 and a GeForce 2 GTS, and the GTS doesn't have a single problem with any game i've tried, whereas the stupid V5 had loads of problems. In 6 games, including GPL and GP3 it ran faster in single-chip mode! And that's out of the 15 or so games I tried, so it's not a very good record. Whereas my GeForce 2 has compatibility to rival my old V3. With the exception of GPL (which is a little slower in D3D versus Glide on a V3/V5) every single game is faster on the GTS compared with when I had the V5. It's 3dfx who have given us old V3 technology in SLI form instead of genuinely innovating. Twelve months on and their new card is just two of their old ones glued together. I don't mean to be offensive, but you are working from out-of-date information if you think the GTS is the slower or less incompatible product. "Alexander Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8nh9ef$8llkl$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > There's more to life than FSAA, both the Geforce as the Radeon are far > more > > advanced products. > > More advanced in lowering production price and maximizing profits for the > respective hardware manufacturer - yes. > > More advanced in giving maximum performance and best compatibility in most > games for the customer - no.

Total rubbish. I've owned both a V5 and a GeForce 2 GTS, and the GTS doesn't have a single problem with any game i've tried, whereas the stupid V5 had loads of problems. In 6 games, including GPL and GP3 it ran faster in single-chip mode! And that's out of the 15 or so games I tried, so it's not a very good record. Whereas my GeForce 2 has compatibility to rival my old V3. With the exception of GPL (which is a little slower in D3D versus Glide on a V3/V5) every single game is faster on the GTS compared with when I had the V5. It's 3dfx who have given us old V3 technology in SLI form instead of genuinely innovating. Twelve months on and their new card is just two of their old ones glued together. I don't mean to be offensive, but you are working from out-of-date information if you think the GTS is the slower or less compatible product. "Alexander Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8nh9ef$8llkl$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > There's more to life than FSAA, both the Geforce as the Radeon are far > more > > advanced products. > > More advanced in lowering production price and maximizing profits for the > respective hardware manufacturer - yes. > > More advanced in giving maximum performance and best compatibility in most > games for the customer - no.

"Alexander Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8nh9ef$8llkl$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > There's more to life than FSAA, both the Geforce as the Radeon are far > more > > advanced products. > > More advanced in lowering production price and maximizing profits for the > respective hardware manufacturer - yes. > > More advanced in giving maximum performance and best compatibility in most > games for the customer - no. > >

"Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote: > I was saying it doesn't matter how the game looks as > long as it drives well, FSAA DOES NOT effect the way > the car drives. Neither does having your monitor on (until you hit something). You are still comparing apples to oranges, RGSS FSAA does not take Game A and turn it into Game B, it simply makes Game A look more like what the designers had in mind. It is nothing more than an extended form of texture filtering, another feature I could turn off if I so desired, but will never do. When you ran GPL under OpenGL did you set 'MipFiltering' to 0? As for your general argument I would tend to agree that car feel and physics are MORE IMPORTANT than graphics (i.e. SBK is better than SBK2000), but I have also downloaded most every track graphics update for GPL, run with the GPLEA car updates and use the GPLSF hi-res dashes so I would disagree that improving the graphics of a game does not improve the game. - George

Pardon me Simon but your assertion of total compatibility is nonsense....the Geforce 2 driver fandango one must go thru to get every game working are pitiful. GUI problems are the order of the day and even Nvidia is giving evidence of this by the mad scrambling to release drivers.... Your problems with the Voodoo 5 are something that is easily avoided by just using FSAA...whereas the Geforce 2 Driver fandango is unavoidable. And lucky you may even get to update your video bios. Your crusade about the insignificant problems with Single Chip performance has backed you into a corner...now you have to say that the Geforce 2 is wonderful and beautiful. Others who have owned one (like me) dont buy it. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (46 lines)

>Total rubbish. I've owned both a V5 and a GeForce 2 GTS, and the GTS >doesn't have a single problem with any game i've tried, whereas the stupid >V5 had loads of problems. In 6 games, including GPL and GP3 it ran faster >in single-chip mode! And that's out of the 15 or so games I tried, so it's >not a very good record. Whereas my GeForce 2 has compatibility to rival my >old V3. > >With the exception of GPL (which is a little slower in D3D versus Glide on a >V3/V5) every single game is faster on the GTS compared with when I had the >V5. > >It's 3dfx who have given us old V3 technology in SLI form instead of >genuinely innovating. Twelve months on and their new card is just two of >their old ones glued together. > >I don't mean to be offensive, but you are working from out-of-date >information if you think the GTS is the slower or less compatible product. > >"Alexander Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:8nh9ef$8llkl$[email hidden]... >> > There's more to life than FSAA, both the Geforce as the Radeon are far >> more >> > advanced products. >> >> More advanced in lowering production price and maximizing profits for the >> respective hardware manufacturer - yes. >> >> More advanced in giving maximum performance and best compatibility in most >> games for the customer - no. > > >"Alexander Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:8nh9ef$8llkl$[email hidden]... >> > There's more to life than FSAA, both the Geforce as the Radeon are far >> more >> > advanced products. >> >> More advanced in lowering production price and maximizing profits for the >> respective hardware manufacturer - yes. >> >> More advanced in giving maximum performance and best compatibility in most >> games for the customer - no. >> >> > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Voodoo 5 vs Geforce Shootout http://www.papadoc.net/Voodoo_vs_Geforce2.htm Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Aim-120 Propellent Addict Infamous Pink Flamingo Pilot...<VBG> Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

I never claimed total compatibilty, but even so I am yet to have a single problem with the Detonator 3 drivers with 20 games tested, or with my own D3D programs. This is a list of games i've tested without *any* problems GPL, * GP3, * SBK 2000, * GP 5000 Unreal Tournament, Quake 2 Arena Thief, * Thief 2, System Shock 2, Mechwarrior 3, Tomb Raider 4, Jedi Knight, F1 2000, Alien Versus Predator, * Rage Rally, Quake, Quake 2, Motor Cross Madness 2, F1WGP, Nascar 3. * The games I have marked with an astrix ran faster with one chip than with two on the V5. Also "fastest-performance" on the V5 should be around 25% faster than 2x FSAA, so just selecting 2x FSAA is no solution. The options should be there to have that extra speed for when you really need it. Like I said, these opinions of the nVidia drivers being incompatible are out of date, Detonator 3 was only released two days ago. I've got nothing against 3dfx, i've owned a Voodoo Graphics, Voodoo 2 and Voodoo 3, and I had the choice to buy either a GeForce 2 or a Voodoo 5 and I choose the V5 so you call hardly call me biased against 3dfx. "Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:399d6528.4452371@news...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Pardon me Simon but your assertion of total compatibility is > nonsense....the Geforce 2 driver fandango one must go thru to get > every game working are pitiful. GUI problems are the order of the day > and even Nvidia is giving evidence of this by the mad scrambling to > release drivers.... > > Your problems with the Voodoo 5 are something that is easily avoided > by just using FSAA...whereas the Geforce 2 Driver fandango is > unavoidable. And lucky you may even get to update your video bios. > Your crusade about the insignificant problems with Single Chip > performance has backed you into a corner...now you have to say that > the Geforce 2 is wonderful and beautiful. Others who have owned one > (like me) dont buy it. > > PAPA DOC

I'm not comparing apples to oranges. I'm saying it doesn't matter if the apple is red or green, as long as they taste good. having no monitor is a useless comment, irrelevant. That fact still remains that FSAA or no, the car still drives the same, that is what is important to me. all graphics features are JUST graphics features, no different, just make the game look better. And if you say that comparing filtered graphics to non filtered graphics as being apples to oranges, I'll just give up and assume you've read way too many 3dfx press releases, you guys sound like sore sort of Mac enthusiasts from the early 90's... George M. Smiley <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:racn5.520$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > I was saying it doesn't matter how the game looks as > > long as it drives well, FSAA DOES NOT effect the way > > the car drives. > > Neither does having your monitor on (until you hit something). > You are still comparing apples to oranges, RGSS FSAA does not > take Game A and turn it into Game B, it simply makes Game A > look more like what the designers had in mind. It is nothing > more than an extended form of texture filtering, another > feature I could turn off if I so desired, but will never do. > When you ran GPL under OpenGL did you set 'MipFiltering' > to 0? > > As for your general argument I would tend to agree that > car feel and physics are MORE IMPORTANT than graphics (i.e. > SBK is better than SBK2000), but I have also downloaded > most every track graphics update for GPL, run with the > GPLEA car updates and use the GPLSF hi-res dashes so > I would disagree that improving the graphics of a game > does not improve the game. > > - George > > >

"Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote: > That fact still remains that FSAA or no, the car still drives > the same, that is what is important to me. I have no problem accepting your opinion on the matter, the question remains why do you have a problem accepting someone elses opinion, differing as it may be, on the very same issue? You act as though I am trying to convert you to another religion. Point of fact, I don't care what video card you use to render your sims with nor what features of that card you choose to use. For me, the way the track looks is very important. RGSS FSAA makes the track look better, just as bilinear texture filtering makes the track surface look better. I can see the entry, apex, and exit more clearly, all of which enhances my experience to the point of not wanting to go back to playing sims without RGSS FSAA. Why is that so difficult to accept? - George

I just have a hard time believing you will NEVER go back... I can see not wanting to go back... I mean if for some reason you had to forever go without FSAA you wouldn't play sims anymore? George M. Smiley <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Bpgn5.36$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (27 lines)

> > "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > That fact still remains that FSAA or no, the car still drives > > the same, that is what is important to me. > > I have no problem accepting your opinion on the matter, the > question remains why do you have a problem accepting > someone elses opinion, differing as it may be, on the very > same issue? You act as though I am trying to convert > you to another religion. Point of fact, I don't care what > video card you use to render your sims with nor what > features of that card you choose to use. > > For me, the way the track looks is very important. RGSS > FSAA makes the track look better, just as bilinear texture > filtering makes the track surface look better. I can see > the entry, apex, and exit more clearly, all of which enhances > my experience to the point of not wanting to go back to > playing sims without RGSS FSAA. Why is that so difficult > to accept? > > - George > > > >

"Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote: > I just have a hard time believing you will NEVER > go back... I can see not wanting to go back. Being a man of independent means and not living in some strange parallel universe where the graphics card police have taken RGSS FSAA out of the hands of the general public the two statements are the same. > I mean if for some reason you had to forever go > without FSAA you wouldn't play sims anymore? Kai, in this world, and there is only this world, I will not play sims without RGSS FSAA or the equivalent enabled. - George