Re: GeForce 2 or Voodoo 5 for Nascar Heat?

The V5 does D3D beautifully, OpenGL is where the GeForce really excels. I get 58 fps with everything maxed out on my V5 at 1280X1024, but it looks much cleaner at 800x600 with 4X FSAA. I get 52 fps at 1024x768 with 2X FSAA, but 4X FSAA just cleans up all that texture swimming and shimmering in the distance that high resolution just can't do. "Sal V." wrote > Get a GeForce-2 it does D3D better than a Voodoo-5. Also you won'tneed FSAA > with a GeForce-2 since you can run at a high resolution. I runNascar Heat > at 1280x1024 and at that resolution there are NO jagged edges. Witha > Athlon-800 and the GeForce-2, Nascar Heat bench marked at 52.0 fpsat > 1280x1024! One other thing to consider (if your interested in it) isthat > Nascar-4 will be Direct-3D

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand) wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> This is a false statement....high resolutions do NOT relieve you from > the need for FSAA. The fact is there are jaggies there is swimming > popping textures and there isnt much a video card that isnt doing FSAA > can do about it...the resolutions have to get absurdly high...much > much higher than is remotely possible on our machines to not need > FSAA. > > PAPA DOC >

Just my 10 cents worth to say that I agree with PapaDoc completely. The FSAA stops all the pixel-popping and heat-haze swimming in the distance, and drastically improves the realism and drivability of auto or flight sims. It doesn't make much difference in other types of games, but if GP3, GPL, Falcon4, etc, are your staple diet, then the Voodoo 5500 is the card. The impact of a few more frames per second, or a little higher screen res, are negligable compared to that of FSAA. -- Rgds, Ivor B. "Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together." Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

A P3 700 running at 980Mhz (140FSB). <[email hidden]> wrote in message > What cpu please.

The one that does D3D/DirectX better. Jerry Morelock "Geeee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Which one should I consider?

Which one should I consider?

I've become completely spoiled by FSAA. On the GTS it's only available on some games and the FSAA image quality is definitely lower when it does work. The GTS is probably a few FPS faster when you can't use AA. For me the V5 is a clear winner. Best Wishes, skp "Geeee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Which one should I consider?

Get a GeForce-2 it does D3D better than a Voodoo-5. Also you won't need FSAA with a GeForce-2 since you can run at a high resolution. I run Nascar Heat at 1280x1024 and at that resolution there are NO jagged edges. With a Athlon-800 and the GeForce-2, Nascar Heat bench marked at 52.0 fps at 1280x1024! One other thing to consider (if your interested in it) is that Nascar-4 will be Direct-3D Good luck, Sal V. "Geeee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Which one should I consider?

I just tried 1280x1024 on the V5. I get 55.4 FPS. I have to tell you that the image quality of 1280x1024 without FSAA is MUCH lower than 1024x768 with 2x FSAA on the V5. Without AA, all of the light poles, fences, window outlines, sidewalls and any other high-contrast areas strobe all the time. I do have a fairly high-end moniter (Mitsubishi 2040u 22") so these things are more obvious than they would be on a moniter with smaller size or lower bandwidth. Resolution is no substitute for anti-aliasing. It simply moves the aliasing frequencies. Non-uniform sampling converts aliasing (easy for the eye to detect) into random noise (something the eye is made to ignore ). System info: P3-800 at 936. MSI BX-Master MB. SB-Live value 256MB ram V5-5500 at 175MHz. I don't really get the point about D3D. The V5 has native D3D or Glide support. It runs D3D just fine. It also supports my 40 or so old glide-only games. For some reason I still love Joint Strike Fighter. Best Wishes, Scott "Sal V." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pQCl5.100828$A%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Get a GeForce-2 it does D3D better than a Voodoo-5. Also you won't need FSAA > with a GeForce-2 since you can run at a high resolution. I run Nascar Heat > at 1280x1024 and at that resolution there are NO jagged edges. With a > Athlon-800 and the GeForce-2, Nascar Heat bench marked at 52.0 fps at > 1280x1024! One other thing to consider (if your interested in it) is that > Nascar-4 will be Direct-3D > > Good luck, > > Sal V. > > > "Geeee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Which one should I consider? > >

This is a false statement....high resolutions do NOT relieve you from the need for FSAA. The fact is there are jaggies there is swimming popping textures and there isnt much a video card that isnt doing FSAA can do about it...the resolutions have to get absurdly high...much much higher than is remotely possible on our machines to not need FSAA. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Get a GeForce-2 it does D3D better than a Voodoo-5. Also you won't need FSAA >with a GeForce-2 since you can run at a high resolution. > >Good luck, > >Sal V. > > >"Geeee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> Which one should I consider? > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Voodoo 5 vs Geforce 2 shootout... Flanker Target GPL Crash Dummy Video Card Wizard www.papadoc.net FALCON 4 Benchmarks Rants, Bullshit and Reviews

Go for the GF2 it's faster and the Quality is Identical if not better IMO (yes I do have both!) Geeee <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Which one should I consider?

On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 19:40:05 GMT, "Sal V." <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Get a GeForce-2 it does D3D better than a Voodoo-5. How does it do it *better* exactly? Waiting patiently for your answer. -- Nos

On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 19:40:05 GMT, "Sal V." <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > With a >Athlon-800 and the GeForce-2, Nascar Heat bench marked at 52.0 fps at >1280x1024! One other thing to consider (if your interested in it) is that >Nascar-4 will be Direct-3D p.s. I just benchmarked NH on a P3 800 with no FSAA and at 1280x1024. I got 52.4 fps.I can still see jaggies too. -- Nos

On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 15:48:51 -0500, "Tracey A Miller" <[email hidden]> thus spoke:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>The V5 does D3D beautifully, OpenGL is where the GeForce really >excels. I get 58 fps with everything maxed out on my V5 at 1280X1024, >but it looks much cleaner at 800x600 with 4X FSAA. > >I get 52 fps at 1024x768 with 2X FSAA, but 4X FSAA just cleans up all >that texture swimming and shimmering in the distance that high >resolution just can't do.

What cpu please. -- Nos

that's great... you care to share what video card and computer setup you are using??? <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 19:40:05 GMT, "Sal V." <[email hidden]> thus > spoke: > > > With a > >Athlon-800 and the GeForce-2, Nascar Heat bench marked at 52.0 fps at > >1280x1024! One other thing to consider (if your interested in it) is that > >Nascar-4 will be Direct-3D > > > p.s. I just benchmarked NH on a P3 800 with no FSAA and at 1280x1024. > I got 52.4 fps.I can still see jaggies too. > -- > Nos

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:40:15 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Very strange. Can I ask what CPU you have? Duron600 @824(8x103), 384MB PC100 @133, V5 running at 183MHz. Posted the specs in that NH benchmark thread as well, have a look at the results there if you like. JanL

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:01:01 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote: >While 800*600 4xFSAA may look very nice in GPL, fsaa can't hide the fact >that by running a lower res you lose visual information. And in a game like >GPL you can't afford to have the frame rate dropping the way it does with 4x >FSAA. Lucky me, GPL runs at 30+ fps here in 1024, 4xFSAA, all cars, details to max, and it looks way better than 1600x1200. I.e. not a loss but a gain of visual information. Maybe it's due to the 21" monitor but I can't stand the jaggies and artifacts anymore, not even at 1600. Spoiled. Completely. Blame 3dfx. :-) JanL

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:25:39 -0700, "Lutrell" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I dont play Q3 (that GF2 is usually rated by) but I do like UT occasionally >which seems to be best with V5 because of Glide and some of the race sims also >with Glide. Image quality or speed, hmm? Where's the problem? In your case the V5 gives you both, best speed (since you play UT in Glide) and image quality (effective 4xFSAA). Did you see PapaDoc's V5 - GF2 shooutout using sims? www.papadoc.net JanL

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 15:04:43 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I tried the leaked drivers which enable you to switch FSAA on and off with a >hotkey, and showed my brother GPL running with and without 4x FSAA and I had >to point out the differences before he could see them. Says it all really. Yeah that says all about ... hey wait, you're trying to lure me into a nasty comment about your brothers eye sight and perception here? ;-) JanL

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 01:44:53 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Out of the 15 or so games I tried, I found about 6 that were faster with >only one chip, compare to running both chips (non fsaa of course). The >games were GP3, GPL, N3. Thief, AVP, SBK 2000. GP3 and GPL were slower than >on my old V3. That's a point, but sort of theoretical too me. Do you really run any game with no FSAA? Remember, even 2xFSAA is faster on these games that have problems with the SLI at no FSAA. If you didn't intend to use FSAA at all then you bought the wrong card indeed. I'm sure *I* will never play a game without FSAA again, just like I'll never played one without hardware 3D acceleration since the days of the Voodoo1. Exceptions are just confirming the rule, SteelBeasts anyone? :-) JanL

WSC will likely be focused on D3D8.0 as well, so that is definitely something else you should consider. A 64MB GeForce2 is more expensive than a Voodoo5 with the same amount of RAM, but it packs quite a wallop compared to the V5 card. In article <pQCl5.100828$A%[email hidden]>, "Sal V." <[email hidden]> wrote: > Get a GeForce-2 it does D3D better than a Voodoo-5. Also you won'tneed FSAA > with a GeForce-2 since you can run at a high resolution. I run NascarHeat > at 1280x1024 and at that resolution there are NO jagged edges. With a > Athlon-800 and the GeForce-2, Nascar Heat bench marked at 52.0 fps at > 1280x1024! One other thing to consider (if your interested in it) isthat

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Nascar-4 will be Direct-3D > > Good luck, > > Sal V. > > "Geeee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Which one should I consider? > >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 01:04:00 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Maybe you should goto www.3dfxgamers.com and take a good look at the Voodoo >5 support message board. Lots of people there with lots of problems. If >I'd seen this board *before* I bought my V5 it would have saved me a lot of >money. Out of curiosity, what are actually *your* problems with the card that you think it wasn't worth the purchase? JanL

For what it is worth. I am using a GeForce2 (Annihilator2) with a 600mhz P3. Nascar Heat looks great at the highest res. with all detail turned up. SILKY smooth! > Which one should I consider? > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:10:57 GMT, [email hidden] (Geeee) wrote: >Which one should I consider? Don't get the V5! Because, if you have seen working 4XFSAA in action once, you will instantly become a 3dfx evangelist and will start spending too much time in newsgroups, trying to convert others. :-) But honestly, I suggest the V5. It's a step like the introduction of hardware accelerated 3D a few years ago, I'll never play again without it. High resolutions (which the V5 can do as well) don't come near the image quality of FSAA JanL

Maybe you should goto www.3dfxgamers.com and take a good look at the Voodoo 5 support message board. Lots of people there with lots of problems. If I'd seen this board *before* I bought my V5 it would have saved me a lot of money. That doesn't mean I'm recommending the GeForce 2, btw, I haven't tried one so am in no position to comment on them. "Geeee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Which one should I consider?

Out of the 15 or so games I tried, I found about 6 that were faster with only one chip, compare to running both chips (non fsaa of course). The games were GP3, GPL, N3. Thief, AVP, SBK 2000. GP3 and GPL were slower than on my old V3. I also heard from other people of probably another ten or so games with the same problem, although I didn't have these games to check. Also I program myself, D3D and DirectDraw, and running the 'fastest-performance' (2-chip, no fsaa) setting crippled some of my 2d programs, and was noticeably slower than 'single-chip' in the 3d ones. Still, the fsaa was nice. "rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > What V5 problems did you have, Simon? >

See my response to rrevved's post above. :) "Jan Loebzien" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 01:04:00 GMT, "Simon Brown" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Maybe you should goto www.3dfxgamers.com and take a good look at theVoodoo > >5 support message board. Lots of people there with lots of problems. If > >I'd seen this board *before* I bought my V5 it would have saved me a lotof

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >money. > > Out of curiosity, what are actually *your* problems with the card that > you think it wasn't worth the purchase? > > > JanL

On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 22:50:33 GMT, "Doug" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >that's great... you care to share what video card and computer setup you are >using??? P3 800, Voodoo5 5500. -- Nos

On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:43:02 -0500, "Tracey A Miller" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >A P3 700 running at 980Mhz (140FSB). I can't overclock my V5. :-( Need an Asus P3V4X. -- Nos

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 01:04:00 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Maybe you should goto www.3dfxgamers.com and take a good look at the Voodoo >5 support message board. Lots of people there with lots of problems. If >I'd seen this board *before* I bought my V5 it would have saved me a lot of >money. Go read Nvidia boards and you will see even more problems. I had a Geforce2 and I know for a fact it has many more problems than a V5. In fact, I have no problems with my V5. -- Nos

Hmm, I have a GF2 and don't have any problems at all! Pete <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 01:04:00 GMT, "Simon Brown" > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > Go read Nvidia boards and you will see even more problems. I had a > Geforce2 and I know for a fact it has many more problems than a V5. > In fact, I have no problems with my V5. > -- > Nos

> Go read Nvidia boards and you will see even more problems. I had a > Geforce2 and I know for a fact it has many more problems than a V5. This may well turn out to be true. However, I won't be paying for a 2-chip board only to find out it runs faster as a one-chip board with around 30% of my games. I found this problem with GPL, GP3, SBK 2000, Thief, N3 and AVP and i've heard about the same problem in other games. That means I was getting V4 performance in a notable number of games. Also GPL and GP3 are faster now that i've got my V3 back in. That's not good enough for �235. > In fact, I have no problems with my V5. > -- > Nos Lucky you.

Well, it's no longer an issue since I sold the V5, but I thought FSAA was over-rated. I bought a V5 because of the Glide games I play (GPL, GP500, UT). I've since found out GPL runs pretty good on a GeForce 2 using D3D, so that's no longer an issue. FSAA was very nice, but nowhere near nice enough to justify the frame-rate hit. 2x FSAA didn't really look a great deal better, and 4xFSAA was just too slow. There is a lot of visual realism to be gained from having games running >50 fps. To see Thief running at 80 fps is way more impressive to me than running with 4x FSAA at 30 fps. In Quake 3 you could only tell FSAA was running by stopping and looking at some stairs, in normal gameplay it made no difference apart from killing the frame rate. I tried the leaked drivers which enable you to switch FSAA on and off with a hotkey, and showed my brother GPL running with and without 4x FSAA and I had to point out the differences before he could see them. Says it all really.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> That's a point, but sort of theoretical too me. > Do you really run any game with no FSAA? Remember, even 2xFSAA > is faster on these games that have problems with the SLI at no FSAA. > > If you didn't intend to use FSAA at all then you bought the wrong card > indeed. I'm sure *I* will never play a game without FSAA again, just > like I'll never played one without hardware 3D acceleration since the > days of the Voodoo1. > Exceptions are just confirming the rule, SteelBeasts anyone? :-)

I was ready to get a V5, but now after reading these posts I am really confused as to V5 or GF2. I dont play Q3 (that GF2 is usually rated by) but I do like UT occasionally which seems to be best with V5 because of Glide and some of the race sims also with Glide. Image quality or speed, hmm? Lutrell "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tPPl5.33620$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > > Go read Nvidia boards and you will see even more problems. I had a > > Geforce2 and I know for a fact it has many more problems than a V5. > > This may well turn out to be true. However, I won't be paying for a 2-chip > board only to find out it runs faster as a one-chip board with around 30% of > my games. I found this problem with GPL, GP3, SBK 2000, Thief, N3 and AVP > and i've heard about the same problem in other games. That means I was > getting V4 performance in a notable number of games. > Also GPL and GP3 are faster now that i've got my V3 back in. > That's not good enough for �235. > > > In fact, I have no problems with my V5. > > -- > > Nos > > Lucky you. > >

Simon Brown wrote: > > Well, it's no longer an issue since I sold the V5, but I thought FSAA was > over-rated. I bought a V5 because of the Glide games I play (GPL, GP500, > UT). I've since found out GPL runs pretty good on a GeForce 2 using D3D, so > that's no longer an issue. I've got a question for you, since I'll be upgrading video cards fairly soon. When I built my teammate's computer I got a chance to see GPL in D3D on a V5. Yes, I know it wasn't intended for Voodoo's, but I just *had* to try it. <g> The trees (among other things) looked pretty darned cheesy in D3D, kinda busts the "realism bubble" for me. Since you've had time with both cards, how does the GPL D3D graphics compare with the GF2 as opposed to the V5? -- Chuck Kandler Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

Er...sorry if I gave the impression I had a GeForce 2, I don't yet. I will have enough to get one this wednesday though (2 days), so assuming my local shop has the Creative card in stock (the only one I can afford) then I'll let you know then. I tried D3D on my V3, and it didn't compare in visual quality to using Glide. There was a general lack of clarity and numerous clipping/z-buffer type artifacts. This is one of the reasons I chose the V5, so I could still use Glide, although having said that I don't know whether these problems show up on a GeForce 2. There's also no doubt that the V5 still runs GPL faster than a GeForce 2 will. For comparison, at the start of a full race at Monza, sat at the back of a full grid of 19 opponents (in-car view), in 1024*768 with all the graphic options on and the detail slider-bar on full, my V3 used to manage 27 fps. The V5 in 'single-chip' mode managed 26 fps and in 'fastest-performance' it did 25 fps. That's with a P3-650. My friend who has a GF2 and Athlon 700 gets 21 fps under the same conditions using the D3D rasterizer. Of course, by the time you've reached the first corner at Monza, all three cards are up to 36 fps. Also I spend most of my time on GPL hotlapping, so these number are largely irrelevant. If I remember I'll post about the GeForce 2 visual quality on wednesday sometime :)

Quoted text (15 lines)

> I've got a question for you, since I'll be upgrading video cards fairly > soon. When I built my teammate's computer I got a chance to see GPL in > D3D on a V5. Yes, I know it wasn't intended for Voodoo's, but I just > *had* to try it. <g> The trees (among other things) looked pretty > darned cheesy in D3D, kinda busts the "realism bubble" for me. Since > you've had time with both cards, how does the GPL D3D graphics compare > with the GF2 as opposed to the V5? > > -- > Chuck Kandler > > Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses > > Registered Linux User #180746 > http://counter.li.org

:) Don't get me wrong, I did like fsaa. It gave a rock solid image, instead of all the wavey texture swimming and jagged edges. While 800*600 4xFSAA may look very nice in GPL, fsaa can't hide the fact that by running a lower res you lose visual information. And in a game like GPL you can't afford to have the frame rate dropping the way it does with 4x FSAA. > Yeah that says all about ... hey wait, you're trying to lure me into a > nasty comment about your brothers eye sight and perception here? ;-) > > > JanL

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 05:59:25 GMT, "Pete" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > Hmm, I have a GF2 and don't have any problems at all! Prior to the the D3D patch for GPL, the mirrors using OpengGL sucked. WWII Fighters has graphics anomalies, Fly! has graphics anomalies, Free Agent window get's screwed up with Creatives Geforce2 drivers (may be fixed with new drivers now). A number of game UI's are screwed up when using FSAA with a Geforce2. And that's juist off the top of my head. -- Nos

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:26:33 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> thus spoke:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>This may well turn out to be true. However, I won't be paying for a 2-chip >board only to find out it runs faster as a one-chip board with around 30% of >my games. I found this problem with GPL, GP3, SBK 2000, Thief, N3 and AVP >and i've heard about the same problem in other games. That means I was >getting V4 performance in a notable number of games. >Also GPL and GP3 are faster now that i've got my V3 back in. >That's not good enough for �235.

I can't tell in GPL because whether I use one chip or two it's never below 36fps. Yes, there is a bug there as you describe that will get fixed, but if you bought a V5 then one of the main reasons was for it's FSAA capabilities. No? With 2X FSAA on all the time you won't ever see that bug. -- Nos

Maybe I can help put the problem in perspective. When I say that 'single-chip' is faster than 'dual-chip' in those games I listed, that doesn't mean that either mode is slow. The speed difference is only a few fps in Thief, AVP and GPL. In Nascar 3 and SBK 2000 the difference is about 25%, and in GP3 it's about 100%. The consequence is that you have to switch to either 'single-chip' or 2x FSAA when running these games. That's not really a big deal though, *and once you've done it these games all run fine*. Also these problems may be fixed in a driver update. I don't want to give the impression that the V5 is a duffer, because it's a very nice card. The reason I found the card unacceptable for me is that I program D3D, and I didn't want to have to figure out how to program my way around this problem. Also in those games where i had to switch to 'single-chip' to get the best frame-rate, that meant I was getting V4 performance (v4 = 1 vsa-100 chip, same clock speed as V5) from a card which cost twice as much as a V4. Hopefully that info will prove useful. "Lutrell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%0Vl5.495$[email hidden]... > I was ready to get a V5, but now after reading these posts I am reallyconfused > as to V5 or GF2. > I dont play Q3 (that GF2 is usually rated by) but I do like UToccasionally > which seems to be best with V5 because of Glide and some of the race simsalso > with Glide. Image quality or speed, hmm? > Lutrell

Very strange. Can I ask what CPU you have? I have a P3-650. Also, does this apply at the start of the race as well, before the flag drops and for the first 10 seconds of the race? Maybe there's some faulty boards out there... With 4x FSAA I was getting the frame-rate dropping to 30 whenever I got close to another car, and it was about 20 fps at the start of the race. Also, even when it was at 36 fps, there was a kind of jerkiness to the movement, as though the odd frame was being dropped. "Jan Loebzien" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Lucky me, GPL runs at 30+ fps here in 1024, 4xFSAA, all cars, details > to max, and it looks way better than 1600x1200. I.e. not a loss but a > gain of visual information. > Maybe it's due to the 21" monitor but I can't stand the jaggies and > artifacts anymore, not even at 1600. > > Spoiled. > > Completely. > > Blame 3dfx. > > :-) > > > JanL

You can't just assume that everyone who bought a V5 bought it just for FSAA. I bought it for Glide and for reliability and ease of use, based on my previous experiences with 3dfx products. Also as for the problem being fixed, the 3dfx technicians I contacted refused to admit there was a problem, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary from numerous sources. And 'fastest-performance' should be around 25% faster than 2x FSAA for those situations where you absolutely need the highest frame-rate, like at the start of races in GPL. GPL and GP3 are both faster on my V3 than using any of the settings on the V5 when I had it. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I can't tell in GPL because whether I use one chip or two it's never > below 36fps. Yes, there is a bug there as you describe that will get > fixed, but if you bought a V5 then one of the main reasons was for > it's FSAA capabilities. No? With 2X FSAA on all the time you won't > ever see that bug. > -- > Nos

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:52:50 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> thus spoke:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>You can't just assume that everyone who bought a V5 bought it just for FSAA. >I bought it for Glide and for reliability and ease of use, based on my >previous experiences with 3dfx products. >Also as for the problem being fixed, the 3dfx technicians I contacted >refused to admit there was a problem, despite overwhelming evidence to the >contrary from numerous sources. And 'fastest-performance' should be around >25% faster than 2x FSAA for those situations where you absolutely need the >highest frame-rate, like at the start of races in GPL. >GPL and GP3 are both faster on my V3 than using any of the settings on the >V5 when I had it.

I already had that with my V3. So no, I bought it for FSAA and no other reason. -- Nos

Yeah, I know, I'm just saying that's not why *I* bought a V5. > I already had that with my V3. So no, I bought it for FSAA and no > other reason. > -- > Nos

Thanks Jan. I guess it doesn't really matter anymore, since I no longer have my V5, but needless to say I wasn't getting the kind of GPL performance which you are getting, even accounting for your system being faster. It's strange because on the www.3dfxgamers.com V5 support message board, there were (and still are) loads of people having numerous problems, and when the 3dfx staff/technicians who man the message boards tried to reproduce the problems they couldn't. This makes me wonder if there's some faulty board about. The V5 was held back from release for several weeks after 3dfx found some "field failures" on some boards. I don't know what a field failure is, but maybe they didn't catch all the faulty boards. "Jan Loebzien" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:40:15 GMT, "Simon Brown" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Very strange. Can I ask what CPU you have? > > Duron600 @824(8x103), 384MB PC100 @133, V5 running at 183MHz. > Posted the specs in that NH benchmark thread as well, have a look at > the results there if you like. > > > JanL

I think that's a bunch of bullshit with the Quake 3. Sorry but benchmarking a video card on the stupidest game out there is just stupid!!!! Who gives a crap if it runs 130 fps in Quake 3 using TimeDemo 1,2 or 3. I don't play Quake 3 and never will... and if I did, I sure as hell wouldn't be sitting there watching a timedemo. Buy what you like.. not what is the fastest. There will ALWAYS be something faster... but if it doesn't make you happy, why do you have it? "Lutrell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%0Vl5.495$[email hidden]... > I was ready to get a V5, but now after reading these posts I am reallyconfused > as to V5 or GF2. > I dont play Q3 (that GF2 is usually rated by) but I do like UToccasionally > which seems to be best with V5 because of Glide and some of the race simsalso > with Glide. Image quality or speed, hmm? > Lutrell >

Simon Brown wrote: > > If I remember I'll post about the GeForce 2 visual quality on wednesday > sometime :) Cool. Thanks. -- Chuck Kandler Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

Had them both and anyone who has sold their V5 to buy a Geforce 2 for less problems has a rude shock coming...<G> There is a reason that Nvidia is releasing drivers every 15 minutes for the Geforce 2 and its not because they are a bunch of really cool guys....the drivers and card were not ready for prime time. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> Hmm, I have a GF2 and don't have any problems at all! > >Prior to the the D3D patch for GPL, the mirrors using OpengGL sucked. >WWII Fighters has graphics anomalies, Fly! has graphics anomalies, >Free Agent window get's screwed up with Creatives Geforce2 drivers >(may be fixed with new drivers now). A number of game UI's are screwed >up when using FSAA with a Geforce2. And that's juist off the top of my >head. >-- >Nos

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Voodoo 5 vs Geforce 2 shootout... Flanker Target GPL Crash Dummy Video Card Wizard www.papadoc.net FALCON 4 Benchmarks Rants, Bullshit and Reviews

Simon this became an emotional issue for you that has blinded you to rational thought....the Geforce 2 will open your eye's to some real fun driver problems....and btw what motherboard CPU combo do you have...? PAPA DOC

Quoted text (16 lines)

> >This may well turn out to be true. However, I won't be paying for a 2-chip >board only to find out it runs faster as a one-chip board with around 30% of >my games. I found this problem with GPL, GP3, SBK 2000, Thief, N3 and AVP >and i've heard about the same problem in other games. That means I was >getting V4 performance in a notable number of games. >Also GPL and GP3 are faster now that i've got my V3 back in. >That's not good enough for �235. > >> In fact, I have no problems with my V5. >> -- >> Nos > >Lucky you. > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Voodoo 5 vs Geforce 2 shootout... Flanker Target GPL Crash Dummy Video Card Wizard www.papadoc.net FALCON 4 Benchmarks Rants, Bullshit and Reviews

I finally got my GeForce 2, the Creative Labs one, but the damn thing was faulty. On every single screen, including the video card bios screen (the first screen that comes up) the display was totally corrupt. I tried it on 3 different motherboards and all showed the same problem, so the card is back in the shop being tested. Hopefully I'll be able to let you know about the visual quality of GPL on a GF2 tomorrow. :) "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Simon Brown wrote: > > > Cool. Thanks. > > -- > Chuck Kandler > > Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses > > Registered Linux User #180746 > http://counter.li.org

Forget about quality with GPL in D3D compared to glide Warren. "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0uzm5.168$[email hidden]... > I finally got my GeForce 2, the Creative Labs one, but the damn thing was > faulty. On every single screen, including the video card bios screen (the > first screen that comes up) the display was totally corrupt. I tried iton > 3 different motherboards and all showed the same problem, so the card is > back in the shop being tested. > > Hopefully I'll be able to let you know about the visual quality of GPL ona

Quoted text (18 lines)

> GF2 tomorrow. :) > > "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Simon Brown wrote: > > > > > > Cool. Thanks. > > > > -- > > Chuck Kandler > > > > Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses > > > > Registered Linux User #180746 > > http://counter.li.org > >

On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:08:25 +0700, "Warren Reicho" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Forget about quality with GPL in D3D compared to glide Why do you say that? I had a Geforce2 for a couple of weeks and the D3D version looked very good. In fact the mirrors are better than the glide version. I have a V5 now though, but I don't see glide looking superior except with FSAA. -- Nos

Thanks for the info, although it's a dissapointment to hear. I can't say I'm surprised though, I'd already seen D3D on my V3 in GPL, and it didn't impress. I wonder if it's worth keeping a V2 in my system just for GPL? "Warren Reicho" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8nep77$bpm$[email hidden]... > > Forget about quality with GPL in D3D compared to glide > > Warren.

Hi, I finally got a working GeForce 2 GTS, and I think it's totally excellent overall. The visual quality in GPL is definitely better than the V3 showed in D3D, but there are still a few issues. The trees you mentioned, like at Monza, they don't look as sharp as under Glide. The good thing though is that the majority of the clipping problems that the V3 showed under D3D are not there with the GeForce2. The game is also very fast and the overall image quality is just as good as with Glide. The colour and definition are practically identical to using Glide on a V3. Also the V3 under D3D showed problems with mip-mapping which made some textures look very blurry. The GeForce 2 does not have this problem. I see no reason not to buy a GeForce 2 GTS because of GPL. The V3 and V5 did give better frame rates at the start of full grid races, but within 10 seconds or so of the start of the race, the GeForce 2 is up to the full 36 fps (in 1024*768 with all details on and the slider bar on full). Hope that helps you make your decision. I'm certainly happier with the GTS than I was with the V5. Simon. "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Simon Brown wrote: > > > > If I remember I'll post about the GeForce 2 visual quality on wednesday > > sometime :) > > > Cool. Thanks. > > -- > Chuck Kandler

On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:29:24 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Hi, I finally got a working GeForce 2 GTS, and I think it's totally >excellent overall. The visual quality in GPL is definitely better than the >V3 showed in D3D, but there are still a few issues. The trees you >mentioned, like at Monza, they don't look as sharp as under Glide. The good >thing though is that the majority of the clipping problems that the V3 >showed under D3D are not there with the GeForce2. The game is also very >fast and the overall image quality is just as good as with Glide. The >colour and definition are practically identical to using Glide on a V3. >Also the V3 under D3D showed problems with mip-mapping which made some >textures look very blurry. The GeForce 2 does not have this problem.

Why would you run GPL in D3D on a V3 card? >I see no reason not to buy a GeForce 2 GTS because of GPL. The V3 and V5 >did give better frame rates at the start of full grid races, but within 10 >seconds or so of the start of the race, the GeForce 2 is up to the full 36 >fps (in 1024*768 with all details on and the slider bar on full). And the V5 did how many FPS under the same conditions?

Simon Brown wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > Hi, I finally got a working GeForce 2 GTS, and I think it's totally > excellent overall. The visual quality in GPL is definitely better than the > V3 showed in D3D, but there are still a few issues. The trees you > mentioned, like at Monza, they don't look as sharp as under Glide. The good > thing though is that the majority of the clipping problems that the V3 > showed under D3D are not there with the GeForce2. The game is also very > fast and the overall image quality is just as good as with Glide. The > colour and definition are practically identical to using Glide on a V3. > Also the V3 under D3D showed problems with mip-mapping which made some > textures look very blurry. The GeForce 2 does not have this problem. > > I see no reason not to buy a GeForce 2 GTS because of GPL. The V3 and V5 > did give better frame rates at the start of full grid races, but within 10 > seconds or so of the start of the race, the GeForce 2 is up to the full 36 > fps (in 1024*768 with all details on and the slider bar on full). > > Hope that helps you make your decision. I'm certainly happier with the GTS > than I was with the V5. > > Simon.

Hmmm... interesting for sure. Thanks for taking the time, Simon! -- Chuck Kandler Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

"T. Wortman" wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:29:24 GMT, "Simon Brown" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Hi, I finally got a working GeForce 2 GTS, and I think it's totally > >excellent overall. The visual quality in GPL is definitely better than the > >V3 showed in D3D, but there are still a few issues. The trees you > >mentioned, like at Monza, they don't look as sharp as under Glide. The good > >thing though is that the majority of the clipping problems that the V3 > >showed under D3D are not there with the GeForce2. The game is also very > >fast and the overall image quality is just as good as with Glide. The > >colour and definition are practically identical to using Glide on a V3. > >Also the V3 under D3D showed problems with mip-mapping which made some > >textures look very blurry. The GeForce 2 does not have this problem. > > Why would you run GPL in D3D on a V3 card?

I had asked him for a comparison earlier in this thread, that's why. :-) When building my teammate's computer, equipped with a V5, I had enabled GPL in D3D mode in order to check it out in 2x FSAA without it locking up. I noticed some funky graphics that don't show normally in Glide. Since I'm coming near time to buy another graphics card, I asked Simon for a comparison since he's had both cards. I was looking to see if the problems were just D3D-specific, or D3D w/Voodoo specific. Hence the comparison. -- Chuck Kandler Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

lol...guess that's what happens when a thread hits 57 responses :) On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:33:02 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (35 lines)

>"T. Wortman" wrote: >> >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:29:24 GMT, "Simon Brown" >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >Hi, I finally got a working GeForce 2 GTS, and I think it's totally >> >excellent overall. The visual quality in GPL is definitely better than the >> >V3 showed in D3D, but there are still a few issues. The trees you >> >mentioned, like at Monza, they don't look as sharp as under Glide. The good >> >thing though is that the majority of the clipping problems that the V3 >> >showed under D3D are not there with the GeForce2. The game is also very >> >fast and the overall image quality is just as good as with Glide. The >> >colour and definition are practically identical to using Glide on a V3. >> >Also the V3 under D3D showed problems with mip-mapping which made some >> >textures look very blurry. The GeForce 2 does not have this problem. >> >> Why would you run GPL in D3D on a V3 card? > > >I had asked him for a comparison earlier in this thread, that's why. >:-) When building my teammate's computer, equipped with a V5, I had >enabled GPL in D3D mode in order to check it out in 2x FSAA without it >locking up. I noticed some funky graphics that don't show normally in >Glide. Since I'm coming near time to buy another graphics card, I asked >Simon for a comparison since he's had both cards. I was looking to see >if the problems were just D3D-specific, or D3D w/Voodoo specific. Hence >the comparison. > >-- >Chuck Kandler > >Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses > >Registered Linux User #180746 >http://counter.li.org

Actually, on closer inspection some of the clipping problems are still there. You'll probably remember from running GPL in D3D that some of the barriers at Monza look to have holes in them when they're a certain deistance away? Well, that problem is still there. Also on the odd occasion the trees appear to be drawn in the wrong order. These problems all seem to be caused by the z-buffer, and turning the z-buffer off removes them but at a small performance cost. Anyway, overall I'm chuffed with the card, it's definitely faster in everything else compared with V3 and V5, even Glide games like UT or GP500 which I now have to run in D3D, look and run great. "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Simon Brown wrote: > > Hmmm... interesting for sure. Thanks for taking the time, Simon! > > Chuck Kandler

> And the V5 did how many FPS under the same conditions? er....also 36. GPL is limited to 36 :)