Which video card???

Hello fellow driving sim fanatics!! I will be upgrading my current video card (Asus 3800 Riva Tnt 2 32 meg) to one of the new generation cards ie-Voodoo5, GE Force 2 but I am somewhat illiterate in this market!! Please offer your honest opinions for this sim fanatic who loves the driving, flying and warring genre's of games with misc titles like Mech Warrior and Ea sports!! Thanks from this Confused Canuck in Calgary , Canada!!! Devon Hill

V5. With 4XFSAA, you will not see any "edges" on the graphics and also eliminates any graphic distortions. In result, especially in sims, distance view and object look very clear and solid-looking. In driving sim (that's only sim I am playing), you can make out corners and straight-aways very easily. Also, 4XFSAA on cars tend to make them to look like model (NFS:PU and GPL). The down side with 4SFSAA is that games would usually run very slow at 32bit in either 800x600 (a bit faster) or 1027 x 768 (may not be playable). Under Glide or at 16bit you shouldn't have much problems. You can always use 2XFSAA instead of 4XFSAA. BTW, there are little visual differences between 4XFSAA under wither 800 x 600 or 1027 x 768. If you have a bigger monitor like 19" and above, you may see the monitor's scanline under 800 x 600. "Devon Hill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WSMa5.68547$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Hello fellow driving sim fanatics!! I will be upgrading my current video > card (Asus 3800 Riva Tnt 2 32 meg) to one of the new generation cards > ie-Voodoo5, GE Force 2 but I am somewhat illiterate in this market!! Please > offer your honest opinions for this sim fanatic who loves the driving, > flying and warring genre's of games with misc titles like Mech Warrior and > Ea sports!! > > Thanks from this Confused Canuck in Calgary , Canada!!! > > Devon Hill > >

I have a v3500 and am about to upgrade to a GTS (geforce 2) I am very happy with my 3500 and would get another 3dfx card but i dont really see the need for FSAA if u can run a game at 1024x768 or 1280x1024. I do know the voodoo card is more stable but for 300 bux this card has to last me awhile and i want SPEED...GTS is winner there at higher resolutions. "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5oOa5.674$[email hidden]... > I would say it depends on how long you intend to keep the card for. Ifyou > generally buy a new video card every 6 months then theres nothing wrongwith > either card, but if you will be keeping the card for two years, then maybe > the lack of hardware T&L chips on the V5 will make you want to plump forthe > GeForce 2 GTS. > It also depends on what features you view as most important. If youreally > fancy the idea of playing all you D3D games with anti-aliasing, then gofor > the V5. > I'm currently trying to decide between the same two cards myself. > >

I would say it depends on how long you intend to keep the card for. If you generally buy a new video card every 6 months then theres nothing wrong with either card, but if you will be keeping the card for two years, then maybe the lack of hardware T&L chips on the V5 will make you want to plump for the GeForce 2 GTS. It also depends on what features you view as most important. If you really fancy the idea of playing all you D3D games with anti-aliasing, then go for the V5. I'm currently trying to decide between the same two cards myself.

whoops! I'm thinking I've heard just the opposite. As the screens get bigger the gts starts bogging down more than the V5. Can't recall exactly where tho... You might want to investigate the two cards a-bit more. (I have seen on this newsgroup that some of the early results comparing the two cards were less than honest.) (but since this is a 3dfx newsgroup that has to be taken with a grain of salt.) You probably will have good results with the gts or the v5 so good luck and have fun. dave henrie "rawdawg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8yOa5.1286$%[email hidden]... > I have a v3500 and am about to upgrade to a GTS (geforce 2) I am veryhappy > with my 3500 and would get another 3dfx card but i dont really see theneed > for > FSAA if u can run a game at 1024x768 or 1280x1024. I do know the voodoocard

Quoted text (9 lines)

> is more stable but for 300 bux this card has to last me awhile and i want > SPEED...GTS is winner there at higher resolutions. > "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:5oOa5.674$[email hidden]... > > I would say it depends on how long you intend to keep the card for. If > you > > generally buy a new video card every 6 months then theres nothing wrong > with > > either card, but if you will be keeping the card for two years, then

maybe

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > the lack of hardware T&L chips on the V5 will make you want to plump for > the > > GeForce 2 GTS. > > It also depends on what features you view as most important. If you > really > > fancy the idea of playing all you D3D games with anti-aliasing, then go > for > > the V5. > > I'm currently trying to decide between the same two cards myself. > > > > > >

From the benchmarks i've seen, in OpenGL at least, the GTS is ahead at every resolution tested compared with a V5. The gap narrows at higher res's but it was still ahead. That's without FSAA of course. With FSAA, it's a different story.

Simon Brown wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > I would say it depends on how long you intend to keep the card for. If you > generally buy a new video card every 6 months then theres nothing wrong with > either card, but if you will be keeping the card for two years, then maybe > the lack of hardware T&L chips on the V5 will make you want to plump for the > GeForce 2 GTS. > It also depends on what features you view as most important. If you really > fancy the idea of playing all you D3D games with anti-aliasing, then go for > the V5. > I'm currently trying to decide between the same two cards myself.

You should consider the fact that using fast CPUs the current T&L implementation on the GTS cards is already slower than doing it on the CPU itself. Having a 3D card for a year is quite possible, but 2 years? You can't or you will stop playing AND enjoying current games at some point. l8er ronny -- |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

Thank you everyone for your input thus far but unfortunately their does not seem to be a consensus!! Let me give you some of my parameters!! I have a Pentium 3 800 with 192 Ram and a 60 gig harddrive and a 48 speed cd rom and I have a 19 inch Samsung monitor! Now what I like the most is a really high resolution and a high frame rate!! Is that possible for one video card to achieve? Also I would like to be able to play some of my older games that need glide which I assume limits me to Voodoo but that is not paramount since this only affect a few old games ie Red Baron 3 d and Tank Platoon 2! Thanks for your continued output from a still confused canuck in Calgary , Canada Devon Hill Ronald Stoehr <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Simon Brown wrote: > > > > I would say it depends on how long you intend to keep the card for. Ifyou > > generally buy a new video card every 6 months then theres nothing wrongwith > > either card, but if you will be keeping the card for two years, thenmaybe > > the lack of hardware T&L chips on the V5 will make you want to plump forthe > > GeForce 2 GTS. > > It also depends on what features you view as most important. If youreally > > fancy the idea of playing all you D3D games with anti-aliasing, then gofor > > the V5. > > I'm currently trying to decide between the same two cards myself. > > You should consider the fact that using fast CPUs the current T&Limplementation > on the GTS cards is already slower than doing it on the CPU itself. > > Having a 3D card for a year is quite possible, but 2 years? You can't oryou

Quoted text (10 lines)

> will stop playing AND enjoying current games at some point. > > l8er > ronny > > -- > |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, > ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. > |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, > '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

This is another one of those popular misconceptions put about by hardware testers who know nothing about 3d programming. It's true that the T&L chips on a GeForce DDR perform T&L slower than a P3-500, but that's totally irrelevant. When running a real game a P3-500 only has about 15-20% of it's cycles to dedicate to T&L, so in an actual game situation the GeForce T&L chips work out to be *way* faster than a real world software T&L implementation. Also, when you take the T&L load off the CPU and onto the on-board T&L chips, you also free up that 15-20% of CPU time for other tasks. Further, not only is the hardware T&L implementation faster, it is *still* faster than software T&L if you double the polygon count. The T&L tests that hardware sites do is testing the Hardware T&L chips, against software T&L performed with a CPU that isn't doing anything else. So the CPU is dedicated 100% of it's cycles to T&L whereas in a real game situation it has no where near the same number of free cycles. And the proof of the pudding, by the way, is that games like MDK2, which is just about the first game to support Hardware T&L to hit the market, see considerable frame rate increases and enhanced lighting when the feature is switched on.

Given that, I would say you can't go wrong with either card. The GeForce 2 GTS is only noticeably faster at lower resolutions. In resolutions higher than 1024*768 the cards are pretty even really. So if you still want Glide games to work, maybe go for the V5. I don't think you will get *high* frame rates (>50) at 1600*1200 or higher on either card though.

Thank you Simon for your input;I am now leaning to the Voodoo5 for those particular reasons and also that it is more affordable! Anyone else have any other opinions? Thanks from a less kerfuffled Canuck in Calgary, Canada. Devon Hill Simon Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:411b5.1534$[email hidden]... > Given that, I would say you can't go wrong with either card. The GeForce2 > GTS is only noticeably faster at lower resolutions. In resolutions higher > than 1024*768 the cards are pretty even really. So if you still wantGlide > games to work, maybe go for the V5. > I don't think you will get *high* frame rates (>50) at 1600*1200 or higher > on either card though. > >