Wow! Thank you rendition (and you wonderful r.a.s readers)

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Just took a spin after ditching the voodoo rush and adding the stealth II. > So far, judging by the dozen or so laps of the glen, I've found the > following: >***pit fps: > Rush: 12-18 (usually twelve) > Rendition: 20-37 (never thought I'd see 37:)) > Chase fps: > Rush: 15-28 > Rendition: 20-28 (not a big increase, but now I don't really need this view)

Odd, most people report significantly higher fps in chase view. Turn off the anti-aliasing. Thats "road noise" from the tires, I don't like it either. Rendition's work so good for GPL, you can get a thriller for $35! JM

That's just like saying the same for the intel processor over AMD. When you dominate the market and have a pretty much unlimited amount of cash to work with, you should be faster. And by the way, the Thriller is faster on a Pentium 233 mmx becuase the Voodoo2 is optimized for the P2. You have to have loads of money in a computer to even use the Voodoo2 to its full capacity. So, the Thriller is an excellent card for those who dont have unlimited funds or just doesnt want the market to dominated like Microsoft and Intel already do. Voodoo2s work so well for GPL, you have to have a High-end P-II to achieve results faster than the Thriller. >Rendition's work so good for GPL, you can get a thriller for $35! >JM

Diamond Stealth II S220, p200mmx, 64sdram, logitech formula force usb. I suppose the 8meg thriller would be a little better, but I'm still holding a grudge against hercules. Besides, the stealth is just to get me buy until I upgrade to 400+ mhz. Then hopefully a new rendition chip will be out. Brian Fox http://www.geocities.com/~foxman

I just got a Celeron 300A, Stealth II S220, 32 MB RAM and PC Chips M726 motherboard to upgrade our P90 (and its not overclocked..yet...)....it runs GPL at anywhere from 30 to 36 fps now! Our PII 350, Matrox Millenium G200, 64MB RAM is lucky to get 30, even with the DLL to let it use the G200 as a 3d-accelerator! Also, the Rendition looks much better - the groove & skidmarks on the G200 are all full dark, but on the rendition, they fade in and out like they should. -- Kirk Lane ICQ: 28171652 >Diamond Stealth II S220, p200mmx, 64sdram, logitech formula force usb. I >suppose the 8meg thriller would be a little better, but I'm still holding a >grudge against hercules. Besides, the stealth is just to get me buy until I >upgrade to 400+ mhz. Then hopefully a new rendition chip will be out. >Brian Fox >http://www.geocities.com/~foxman >>Hi, >> So which card are you exactly referring to in your editorial? sounds >>like the one to get.

John... With all due respect, John, I have to disagree. Here's why: Yesterday, I received a Thriller 3D 8MB AGP card. With anxious anticipation, I dropped it in my PC, replacing the Banshee that had frustrated me with its intermittent texture problems. Man, was I surprised! First thing I noticed was my desktop. The Banshee offered 100Hz at 1024 x 768. The Thriller? Could do no better than 90Hz. In addition, as much as I adjusted both the horizontal and vertical moir settings on my monitor, I just couldn't quite get rid of all the moir effects that Thriller was producing in collaboration with my 19" Hitachi 751. The Banshee 2D screen had been superb and quick. I'm in front of my PC all day, so these aspects of the Thriller weren't thrilling me. But superb GPL performance awaited, so I moved on. After downloading the latest Thriller drivers from Hercules, I was finally able to run GPL at a Banshee-matching 1024 x 768. (The out-of-the-box drivers had only offered 800 x 600.) I then quickly discovered that, even in Training mode, the Thriller couldn't hit 36fps with the graphics settings that I usually use for online racing. With less than 2 hours left until race time, I had to get going. Opted for the 800 x 600 quick fix. Another disturbing thing I noticed regarded vertical scan frequency in GPL. My Banshee had provided 100Hz at 1024 x 768. With the Thriller the frequency dropped to 75Hz at a *lower* 800x 600 resolution. My money says that in a Pro Long or GP length event, my eyes will *feel* that difference! And to add insult to injury, when I left GPL, my 1024 desktop was restored at 75Hz, not the 90Hz I was in when I started GPL. With the Banshee my desktop had always been restored to 100Hz. Puzzled by all this I decided to do a little testing this morning. Here the results: Track: Watkins Glen Mode: Training Graphics Settings: At Maximum (except as noted) Sound Settings: At Maximum ---------------------------------------- Hercules Thriller 3D 8 MB AGP Resolution: 800 x 600 With Anti-Aliasing: FPS 24-28 Esses 28-30 Average Elsewhere 31 Maximum Without Anti-Aliasing: FPS 25-31 Esses 29-30 Average Elsewhere 34 Maximum ---------------------------------------- Creative Labs 3D Blaster Banshee 16MB AGP Resolution: 1024 x 768 Without Anti-Aliasing (not available): FPS 35-36 Esses 35-36 Average Elsewhere 36 Maximum ---------------------------------------- Test Platform: PII-450-128MB These results seem to speak for themselves. The Banshee basically pegs the frame counter all the way around the Glen. The Thriller runs around 28-30 fps typically, dropping noticeably in a few spots on the track. Amazingly, the Banshee was tested at 1024 x 768 and the Rendition-based Thriller at 800 x 600! Having owned all four of the GPL-friendly boards (Banshee, Voodoo2, TNT, and now Rendition), I'd have to say that my unequivocal recommendation, among currently available boards, is Banshee, at least for higher end systems. Let's just hope the intermittent texture problems get resolved by future drivers! Hope this helps a few of you trying to make a video board decision for GPL! P.S. I have a 1-day-old Thriller for sale for $70 + shipping (that's my cost less BuyComp.com's restocking fee) for anybody that wants it!

There is definitely something strange at work here....I have a lesser processor (K6/2-300) and a lesser graphics card( Stealth II S220), and at those same settings(w/ anti-aliasing) I get no less than 27 in training. Most of the way around it's 34-36. There is a huge hit with other cars, which is why I use 640x480, but I wonder why the discrepancy in training frame rate. Scott Moore

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>Rendition's work so good for GPL, you can get a thriller for $35! >John... >With all due respect, John, I have to disagree. Here's why: >Yesterday, I received a Thriller 3D 8MB AGP card. With anxious

anticipation, >I dropped it in my PC, replacing the Banshee that had frustrated me with its

Quoted text (57 lines)

>intermittent texture problems. Man, was I surprised! >Track: Watkins Glen >Mode: Training >Graphics Settings: At Maximum (except as noted) >Sound Settings: At Maximum >---------------------------------------- >Hercules Thriller 3D 8 MB AGP >Resolution: 800 x 600 >With Anti-Aliasing: >FPS >24-28 Esses >28-30 Average Elsewhere >31 Maximum >Without Anti-Aliasing: >FPS >25-31 Esses >29-30 Average Elsewhere >34 Maximum >---------------------------------------- >Creative Labs 3D Blaster Banshee 16MB AGP >Resolution: 1024 x 768 >Without Anti-Aliasing (not available): >FPS >35-36 Esses >35-36 Average Elsewhere >36 Maximum >---------------------------------------- >Test Platform: >PII-450-128MB >These results seem to speak for themselves. The Banshee basically pegs the >frame counter all the way around the Glen. The Thriller runs around 28-30 >fps typically, dropping noticeably in a few spots on the track. Amazingly, >the Banshee was tested at 1024 x 768 and the Rendition-based Thriller at

800 >x 600! >Having owned all four of the GPL-friendly boards (Banshee, Voodoo2, TNT, and

Quoted text (8 lines)

>now Rendition), I'd have to say that my unequivocal recommendation, among >currently available boards, is Banshee, at least for higher end systems. >Let's just hope the intermittent texture problems get resolved by future >drivers! >Hope this helps a few of you trying to make a video board decision for GPL! >P.S. I have a 1-day-old Thriller for sale for $70 + shipping (that's my

cost >less BuyComp.com's restocking fee) for anybody that wants it!

I think you might see a big difference between 640 x 480 and 800 x 600 (56% more pixels). Also, did you have all mirror detail and all ahead and mirror settings on, detail bias at 100%, and all *sounds* on? Let us know! Thanks!