CPR: Riva vs 3dfx: D3D

I was directed to a utility that allows you to control which 3d Accelerator runs any given application, assuming that both can run the application in question. When I first ran CPR it was with my VIPER 330, therefore it was the RIVA that was running it. I noticed that it was dark and there was a lot of "pop up" in the graphics. I discovered the Ctrl F command and corrected some of the pop up problem, but it remains dark and "overcast" overall, even after turning up the brightness on the monitor. This Utility allows me to run CPR with the secondary card: Monster, also by Diamond, and I wish to report that CPR looks MUCH better when run from the MOnster card. It is 20 to 40 percent better. Brighter, way, way less pop up, more vibrant colors and generally more attractive. Both cards seem to do a good job on Frame rate, but the Monster, therefore the Voodoo chips, seem to out perform the Riva Chips on this one occaision.... Anyone else have any similar experiences when testing the two chipsets on a same appliication. Just for general info.... JEB "OZ"

Quoted text (18 lines)

> I was directed to a utility that allows you to control which 3d Accelerator > runs any given application, assuming that both can run the application in > question. When I first ran CPR it was with my VIPER 330, therefore it was > the RIVA that was running it. I noticed that it was dark and there was a lot > of "pop up" in the graphics. I discovered the Ctrl F command and corrected > some of the pop up problem, but it remains dark and "overcast" overall, even > after turning up the brightness on the monitor. > This Utility allows me to run CPR with the secondary card: Monster, also by > Diamond, and I wish to report that CPR looks MUCH better when run from the > MOnster card. It is 20 to 40 percent better. > Brighter, way, way less pop up, more vibrant colors and generally > more attractive. > Both cards seem to do a good job on Frame rate, but the Monster, therefore > the Voodoo chips, seem to out perform the Riva Chips on this one > occaision.... > Anyone else have any similar experiences when testing the two chipsets on a > same appliication.

(Reposted from Friday) I did a quick benchmark using CART Precision Racing (full version) to find the performance difference between the 3Dfx (Orchid R3D) and the Riva 128 (Viper V330). I drove while my brother watched and recorded the high/low framerates. The test was configured as follows: All graphics options "on" or "full", sound was set to 16-bit stereo, track used was Michigan in practice mode with no opponents. Measurements were taken during one full lap (-after- completing one full pre-lap to load in all textures). The R3D was tweeked using the following in win.ini: [3dfx] SST_GRXCLK=54 SST_VIDEO_24BPP=1 SST_SCREENREFRESH=75 SST_GAMMA=1.0 SST_FASTMEM=1 SST_FASTPCIRD=1 SST_MEMINFO=1 SST_MEMINFO_LFB=1 SST_MEMINFO_TEX=1 SST_SWAP_EN_WAIT_ON_VSYNC=0 Brief system configuration: P233MMX (o/c to 250Mhz (83.3Mhz bus)) Asus T2P4 rev 3.2(512k) 128Mb EDO Viper drivers 4.10.01.0015 3Dfx D3D reference drivers 2.13 Framerate(lowest) Framerate(highest) 3Dfx 14 27 Riva 128- 13 22 The results show that the 3Dfx is a bit faster, at least in -this- game and using this particular benchmark. I know that the Riva beats out the 3Dfx in other D3D benchmarks...maybe the other benchmarks don't strain the chipsets as much as CART does. Regardless, this wasn't a test to see who beats who. It was just a test to see which card I should be running when playing this rather "demanding" game. I like, and use -both- the Viper V330 and the R3D...I play Jedi Knight in 800x600 on the Viper V330 and am -very- pleased with it's performance. -- Sergey Zakharov To reply, replace "nospam" with my organization.

What do these options do to your Orchid 3Dfx card? MarkH .