Yeah but his statement is true for all video cards, well, I guess not Nvidia cards. Seriously, can you tell me why it's important to get 200 fps (or something outrageously stupid) at 16 bit color and not as good image quality, when you can play at 180 fps with much better quality, hardware DVD decoding and much much better 2d? And the difference in fps is even reversed in higher resolutions.
Actually you must be mistaken. I am in the process of upgrading but see no big reason for it. The difference between 40FPS and 100FPS is very little. At least in human perception. Some claim there is a difference but 40fps is so smooth you would be extremely hard pressed to tell the difference. So I would rather have 40fps and better image quality ANY day over 70 fps and less image quality. The only reason I am upgrading is because I need a card for a second computer and figured I might as well get a 32mb one for myself. I got the Radeon DDR 32 as I got it for $110 new. I chose it over the Geforce II because it has BETTER IMAGE QUALITY!!!
BTW , the first DX8 compliant drivers for Radeon will be available later today at rageunderground.
Well I game with a guy who has a Radeon (HARM) and side by side I don't see this superior image quality you all talk of. I think some of you see what you want to see.
I ran 3DMarks, StarTrek Armada, Deus Ex and Q3 in 16 and 32 bit color and I did not see much of a diff either. But I sure that's because I'm blind and/or my ViewSonic sucks right!
I ran 3DMarks, StarTrek Armada, Deus Ex and Q3 in 16 and 32 bit color and I did not see much of a diff either. But I sure that's because I'm blind and/or my ViewSonic sucks right!
Taz4158 wrote:
<< That's a joke right? You think the MX outperforms the Radeon 32 meg DDR? >>
Yes, it does....in 16-bit color that is and only in single-textured and single-pass dual-textured applications.
The reason, of course, has to do with fill rate. The MX with its two pixel pipelines and two texturing for each pipeline (for a total of four) has a fill rate of 350 million pixels per second in both single-textured and single-pass dual-texturing. When single-pass three-texturing is used, its fill rate drops to 175 million pixels per second.
The Radeon also has two pixel pipelines but clocked at just 166MHz (compared to 175Mhz for the MX) has a fill rate of 333 million pixels per second. This is the fill rate for single-texturing, single-pass dual-textured, and single-pass three-textured applications. Notice that it does not drop in single-pass three-texturing like the MX. Also notice that the advantage that the MX has is not very large at all.
So yes, it certain situations the MX is faster than the Radeon. Barring problems with the drivers (and weak T&L engine), this advantage is not very large.
In 32-bit color, things change drastically as the MX does not have the bandwidth to keep up with the Radeon.
hans007 wrote:
<< 3dmark is the dumbest benchmark in the world. The v5 with the new drivers is very comparable to a gts2, but gets destroyed in 3dmark. 3dmark just plain sucks. >>
Oh yes. It is the old "benchmark sucks because my favorite card from my favorite company does not win" argument. It is nice to know that such self-serving statements like that is alive and kicking.
DominioBoy wrote:
<< Does anybody remember 2 years ago when Voodoo3 and TNT2 were out, and Nvidia guys went on and on about how great 32bit color was, and that 3dfx didn't have it. Now some of them claim that 32bit color isn't important and doesn't make a difference anymore. HAHAHA!!!! >>
Where to begin? First, the V3 and TNT2 were released in 1999. Since it is still the year 2000, that is not two years ago. Second, please provide the quote from a designated representative of NVIDIA or their fans stating that 32-bit color does not make a difference or it isn't important? Third, provide proof that these so-called NVIDIA representatives that you have in mind are not simply individuals buying the line that 3dfx fans has been feeding people for years (e.g. 32-bit not much better than 16-bit)? Fourth, can you also provide proof that these people who are making these claims even know what they are looking for when they are deciding what looks different between 32-bit and 16-bit color?
The fourth question I can answer for you. They do not know what they are looking for and that ignorance is what 3dfx and their legion of followers used to manipulate people since 1998. Do you really believe that all that propaganda had no impact on people's way of thinking?
<< That's a joke right? You think the MX outperforms the Radeon 32 meg DDR? >>
Yes, it does....in 16-bit color that is and only in single-textured and single-pass dual-textured applications.
The reason, of course, has to do with fill rate. The MX with its two pixel pipelines and two texturing for each pipeline (for a total of four) has a fill rate of 350 million pixels per second in both single-textured and single-pass dual-texturing. When single-pass three-texturing is used, its fill rate drops to 175 million pixels per second.
The Radeon also has two pixel pipelines but clocked at just 166MHz (compared to 175Mhz for the MX) has a fill rate of 333 million pixels per second. This is the fill rate for single-texturing, single-pass dual-textured, and single-pass three-textured applications. Notice that it does not drop in single-pass three-texturing like the MX. Also notice that the advantage that the MX has is not very large at all.
So yes, it certain situations the MX is faster than the Radeon. Barring problems with the drivers (and weak T&L engine), this advantage is not very large.
In 32-bit color, things change drastically as the MX does not have the bandwidth to keep up with the Radeon.
hans007 wrote:
<< 3dmark is the dumbest benchmark in the world. The v5 with the new drivers is very comparable to a gts2, but gets destroyed in 3dmark. 3dmark just plain sucks. >>
Oh yes. It is the old "benchmark sucks because my favorite card from my favorite company does not win" argument. It is nice to know that such self-serving statements like that is alive and kicking.
DominioBoy wrote:
<< Does anybody remember 2 years ago when Voodoo3 and TNT2 were out, and Nvidia guys went on and on about how great 32bit color was, and that 3dfx didn't have it. Now some of them claim that 32bit color isn't important and doesn't make a difference anymore. HAHAHA!!!! >>
Where to begin? First, the V3 and TNT2 were released in 1999. Since it is still the year 2000, that is not two years ago. Second, please provide the quote from a designated representative of NVIDIA or their fans stating that 32-bit color does not make a difference or it isn't important? Third, provide proof that these so-called NVIDIA representatives that you have in mind are not simply individuals buying the line that 3dfx fans has been feeding people for years (e.g. 32-bit not much better than 16-bit)? Fourth, can you also provide proof that these people who are making these claims even know what they are looking for when they are deciding what looks different between 32-bit and 16-bit color?
The fourth question I can answer for you. They do not know what they are looking for and that ignorance is what 3dfx and their legion of followers used to manipulate people since 1998. Do you really believe that all that propaganda had no impact on people's way of thinking?
now can some1 tell me where to find somthing to oc that radeon i don't like 166Mhz that much nowing how coll run the radeon
Get this people. So far here in Australia I have not seen any Radeon card for under AUD$650.00!!!
Most MX Cards are under AUD$280.00...It's as you would say a no brainer here.
So it's a MX SDR for me and anything out today has got to be better than my old V3 2K! Pretty SAD about 3dFX on it's way to the land of the Dodo. I've been with them since the Voodoo 1 days and it just seems amazing to hear so many people bitching about them over the years when half of them were as happy as a pig in sh*t when they finally got that Monster 3d card. They were king of the hill and it never fails that there is always someone who wants to kick the king off the hill..enter nVidia.
It's called progress but I can never forget and neither can the industry about what 3dFx did for the advancement of PC 3D video technology and inevitably all of our enjoyment from that first Voodoo card to well after we ourselves have gone the way of the Dodo.
My advise is check out the cards for yourself. Find one that YOU like the best for what ever reason and buy it. Next time you get upgrade fever do the same and YOU will never be disappointed! Yet never forget that as technology advances you will never again come across such a huge difference from one product to the next as you did with a Voodoo 1 card and the other 3D 'decelerators' of the day. Lets just hope that than can survive the transition and continue to keep the 3D Vid card market alive. What would we all do if nVidia was indeed the best at everything and there was no competition. Well at least no more inane arguments!!!
Most MX Cards are under AUD$280.00...It's as you would say a no brainer here.
So it's a MX SDR for me and anything out today has got to be better than my old V3 2K! Pretty SAD about 3dFX on it's way to the land of the Dodo. I've been with them since the Voodoo 1 days and it just seems amazing to hear so many people bitching about them over the years when half of them were as happy as a pig in sh*t when they finally got that Monster 3d card. They were king of the hill and it never fails that there is always someone who wants to kick the king off the hill..enter nVidia.It's called progress but I can never forget and neither can the industry about what 3dFx did for the advancement of PC 3D video technology and inevitably all of our enjoyment from that first Voodoo card to well after we ourselves have gone the way of the Dodo.
My advise is check out the cards for yourself. Find one that YOU like the best for what ever reason and buy it. Next time you get upgrade fever do the same and YOU will never be disappointed! Yet never forget that as technology advances you will never again come across such a huge difference from one product to the next as you did with a Voodoo 1 card and the other 3D 'decelerators' of the day. Lets just hope that than can survive the transition and continue to keep the 3D Vid card market alive. What would we all do if nVidia was indeed the best at everything and there was no competition. Well at least no more inane arguments!!!
Moving Target: You just proved your own point, people see what they want to see.
Brain Dead: Can you guess why the MX is so much cheaper though it's just as new (or old) as the Radeon? =) But I believe I just sold a 64 MB retail to someone for 535 AU, I think that was the number after I converted it.
CresenS: Powerstrip is the one thing that can do it right now, don't know if it works well or not though.
legion88: What are you talking about? You are denying the fact that Nvidia and its followers were using the old "32 bit is much better than 16 bit" propaganda when they were comparing the TNT2 to the Voodoo3? There's no reason why 32 bit color was a must have back then and now it's just crap, well, except for the fact that 32 bit isn't Nvidia's strong point anymore. Perhaps you are the one who has bought into Nvidia's propaganda, listening to whatever Nvidiots are saying. I am sure if you can find a forum from a year and half ago, people would be bashing 3dfx's no 32 bit, now they are bashing ATI's 32 bit. Hmmm...
Brain Dead: Can you guess why the MX is so much cheaper though it's just as new (or old) as the Radeon? =) But I believe I just sold a 64 MB retail to someone for 535 AU, I think that was the number after I converted it.
CresenS: Powerstrip is the one thing that can do it right now, don't know if it works well or not though.
legion88: What are you talking about? You are denying the fact that Nvidia and its followers were using the old "32 bit is much better than 16 bit" propaganda when they were comparing the TNT2 to the Voodoo3? There's no reason why 32 bit color was a must have back then and now it's just crap, well, except for the fact that 32 bit isn't Nvidia's strong point anymore. Perhaps you are the one who has bought into Nvidia's propaganda, listening to whatever Nvidiots are saying. I am sure if you can find a forum from a year and half ago, people would be bashing 3dfx's no 32 bit, now they are bashing ATI's 32 bit. Hmmm...
Hawk: Generally becuase I haven't seen any SDR versions.. They all seem to be 64Mb DDR and that adds heaps to the price. It may be a good card ( I haven't seen one cranked up yet) but at that price I'd rather throw in a P3 850. It's bang for your buck for me and the MX give's a pretty good bang for about AUD$230 About USD$120 (Cheap & Cheerful Generic Brand). Plus I believe that the Radeon is supposed to compete with the High end cards like the GTS etc. No arguments here I think if the Radeon had better drivers the 16bit side would really pick up but when I get a card capable of 32bit who cares. Like I said though I'd have to have a hands on look at it before forking out that kind of dough in Australia. If I was in the US I would certainly have a good look at it right now. I've only got a 15" monitor so low 800*600 is good enough and the MX fits that nicely in 32bit.
Does that answer your question?
Hawk: AUD$535 is a very nice price. No wonder he chose to buy it off you instead of the rip off merchants here in OZ!!
Does that answer your question?
Hawk: AUD$535 is a very nice price. No wonder he chose to buy it off you instead of the rip off merchants here in OZ!!
Legion88 shows again why he is known at forums everywhere as "The man who knows too little, and speaks too much".
Exhibit A.
"First, the V3 and TNT2 were released in 1999. Since it is still the year 2000, that is not two years ago."
Oh my goodness. They were out at the beginning of 1999. This is the end of 2000. I guess they don't teach math, or explain calenders at the special schools anymore. But then, atleast you did get to ride on that special bus.
Exhibit B.
"Second, please provide the quote from a designated representative of NVIDIA or their fans stating that 32-bit color does not make a difference or it isn't important?"
ROFLOL!!!! Designated representative, HAHAHA, oh man stop it. If you had been reading this thread instead of just looking for an argument you would have seen that several Nvidia fans were saying that, and that's who we were talking to.
Exhibit C.
"Third, provide proof that these so-called NVIDIA representatives that you have in mind are not simply individuals buying the line that 3dfx fans has been feeding people for years (e.g. 32-bit not much better than 16-bit)?"
Like I said above man, you are OUT OF TOUCH and should read the thread before speaking. What you are saying makes no sense and does not apply to what we are talking about, or the context of the coversation. You words are all over the place man, get it together.
Exhibit D.
"Fourth, can you also provide proof that these people who are making these claims even know what they are looking for when they are deciding what looks different between 32-bit and 16-bit color?"
Well, actually they probably don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, but that simply proves my point.
Legion88, you have come in here shooting off your smartass mouth without reading what the hell was going on. You have missed the entire point. By the way, I am an Nvidia owner myself, and I agree that 32bit color is better, and a definate improvement over 16bit. But you would know these things if you had actually read what was going on.
But you couldn't come and try to carry on a discussion like a normal person. Instead you chose to be a smartass, and make false accusations about what people said. So I have given you a little attitude in return. You should just go play with your little toys now, and leave the big boys to talk about the fancy computers.
BTW, good points Hawk. I see you noticed the same glaring flaws and oversights in his comments as I did.
Exhibit A.
"First, the V3 and TNT2 were released in 1999. Since it is still the year 2000, that is not two years ago."
Oh my goodness. They were out at the beginning of 1999. This is the end of 2000. I guess they don't teach math, or explain calenders at the special schools anymore. But then, atleast you did get to ride on that special bus.
Exhibit B.
"Second, please provide the quote from a designated representative of NVIDIA or their fans stating that 32-bit color does not make a difference or it isn't important?"
ROFLOL!!!! Designated representative, HAHAHA, oh man stop it. If you had been reading this thread instead of just looking for an argument you would have seen that several Nvidia fans were saying that, and that's who we were talking to.
Exhibit C.
"Third, provide proof that these so-called NVIDIA representatives that you have in mind are not simply individuals buying the line that 3dfx fans has been feeding people for years (e.g. 32-bit not much better than 16-bit)?"
Like I said above man, you are OUT OF TOUCH and should read the thread before speaking. What you are saying makes no sense and does not apply to what we are talking about, or the context of the coversation. You words are all over the place man, get it together.
Exhibit D.
"Fourth, can you also provide proof that these people who are making these claims even know what they are looking for when they are deciding what looks different between 32-bit and 16-bit color?"
Well, actually they probably don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, but that simply proves my point.
Legion88, you have come in here shooting off your smartass mouth without reading what the hell was going on. You have missed the entire point. By the way, I am an Nvidia owner myself, and I agree that 32bit color is better, and a definate improvement over 16bit. But you would know these things if you had actually read what was going on.
But you couldn't come and try to carry on a discussion like a normal person. Instead you chose to be a smartass, and make false accusations about what people said. So I have given you a little attitude in return. You should just go play with your little toys now, and leave the big boys to talk about the fancy computers.
BTW, good points Hawk. I see you noticed the same glaring flaws and oversights in his comments as I did.
I concur with Hawk wholeheartedly.
BTW Hawk I LOVE my Radeon 64 DDR you sold me. I currently hold the highest Duron/Raedon combo scores in 3DMark2000
BTW Hawk I LOVE my Radeon 64 DDR you sold me. I currently hold the highest Duron/Raedon combo scores in 3DMark2000
If you want to see the difference between 16 bit and 32 bit, try comparing 2 high resolution digital photos and you will see the difference. I can't tell the difference in games though and I have a Sony 19 inch monitor.
I have the Radeon 32meg ddr, a geforcemx and a voodoo5500. The radeon is faster than the mx. If you dont think 32bit color makes a diff then play rune and look at the textures and the sky in both 32 bit and 16. Youll feel like a real dunbass. 32bit makes it look alot better.also from my testing the 5500 is the fastest all around card and looks sweet also.
The people who can't see the difference between 16 and 32 are just trying to justify their purchase of the MX. Can't blame them for that though as ridiculous as it is.
Lots of people here are talking about the Radeon's overclocking potential.
I have the 64MB bulk version (clocked at 166/166), and I have clocked it to 200(engine)/190(memory). Works great! And I gain 800-900 points in 3DMark 2k!
I have the 64MB bulk version (clocked at 166/166), and I have clocked it to 200(engine)/190(memory). Works great! And I gain 800-900 points in 3DMark 2k!
Taz,
The people who think they see the difference between 16 and 32 are just trying to justify their purchase of the Radeon. Can't blame them for that though as ridiculous as it is.
Works both ways.
I'm not trying to justify what I bough to you, I could care less. I buy things for me, not you. I like to mod and tinker with stuff, I do the same things with my motorcycles.
If you think you can see the diff between 16 and 32, great, enjoy your Radeon.
The people who think they see the difference between 16 and 32 are just trying to justify their purchase of the Radeon. Can't blame them for that though as ridiculous as it is.
Works both ways.
I'm not trying to justify what I bough to you, I could care less. I buy things for me, not you. I like to mod and tinker with stuff, I do the same things with my motorcycles.
If you think you can see the diff between 16 and 32, great, enjoy your Radeon.
<< When single-pass three-texturing is used, its fill rate drops to 175 million pixels per second. >>
And how many games out there do 3 rendering passes?
And dont speak about future games, cause if you buy a budget card(MX) you dont buy it cause it will play tomorrow's games great.
And yes I think 32 bit color makes a world of difference in games such as Quake3, UT(which sucks BTW
), Nocturne, and even the elderly Motorhead, plus lots of other games.Hawk wrote:
<< What are you talking about? You are denying the fact that Nvidia and its followers were using the old "32 bit is much better than 16 bit" propaganda when they were comparing the TNT2 to the Voodoo3? >>
Oh, yes, it is the old "argue against something that was never said" tactic.
To make it clear to people who fall for such propaganda tactic, I never claimed, hinted, or suggested that NVIDIA supporters never said "32 bit is much better than 16-bit". That is what Hawk claimed I said.
We all know that many NVIDIA supporters said that 32-bit color is much better than 16-bit. The argument that people like DominoBoy is making today is that these same NVIDIA supporters are now saying the opposite. DominoBoy is making the exaggerated claim that NVIDIA supporters (some of them) have now switched sides on this 32-bit color issue because of the superiority of the 32-bit color performance of the Radeon.
The argument I made is that there were a number of 3dfx supporters last year who argued that 32-bit color is not much better (better but not enough) than 16-bit. Many of these same 3dfx supporters are now owners of NVIDIA cards. The comments that these people MIGHT have made is transferred to NVIDIA supporters (some of them) of last year, making it appear that NVIDIA supporters (some of them) from last year are hypocrites.
Additionally, 3dfx's progaganda tactic had convinced a number of people that 32-bit color was not "needed" last year. There were a number of people who claimed to have owned NVIDIA cards repeating this same 3dfx party line. Funny, these NVIDIA owners actually post frequently in 3dfx Voodoo3 newsgroup last year but hardly ever participated in any newsgroup meant for NVIDIA cards. Does anyone actually believe that these NVIDIA "supporters" would somehow changed their views on 32-bit color? That would be hypocritical if they did.
Finally and most importantly, I do not see any effort by DominoBoy to determine the views that today's participants had last year to see if these current NVIDIA supporters who are now bashing the Radeon switched sides on this 32-bit color issue. He simply assumed that they did switched sides without even asking them what they believed last year.
There is no doubt that there will be a few true-blue NVIDIA fanatics who will switch sides on the 32-bit color issue whenever they see fit. But to exagerate this element to the point that one has to claim that he feels ashamed or embarrased (e.g. DominoBoy) to own an NVIDIA card is a bit too much. It is only a video card. There is no need to feel ashamed.
I know for example that a number of 3dfx supporters last year deliberately lied about the video card (Voodoo3 that is), the competition (NVIDIA that is), among other things. Their lying did not make me feel ashamed to purchase and own a Voodoo3 2000 nor was I ashamed of owning shares of 3dfx stocks. This is only a video card. There is no need to feel ashamed or embarrassed.
<< What are you talking about? You are denying the fact that Nvidia and its followers were using the old "32 bit is much better than 16 bit" propaganda when they were comparing the TNT2 to the Voodoo3? >>
Oh, yes, it is the old "argue against something that was never said" tactic.
To make it clear to people who fall for such propaganda tactic, I never claimed, hinted, or suggested that NVIDIA supporters never said "32 bit is much better than 16-bit". That is what Hawk claimed I said.
We all know that many NVIDIA supporters said that 32-bit color is much better than 16-bit. The argument that people like DominoBoy is making today is that these same NVIDIA supporters are now saying the opposite. DominoBoy is making the exaggerated claim that NVIDIA supporters (some of them) have now switched sides on this 32-bit color issue because of the superiority of the 32-bit color performance of the Radeon.
The argument I made is that there were a number of 3dfx supporters last year who argued that 32-bit color is not much better (better but not enough) than 16-bit. Many of these same 3dfx supporters are now owners of NVIDIA cards. The comments that these people MIGHT have made is transferred to NVIDIA supporters (some of them) of last year, making it appear that NVIDIA supporters (some of them) from last year are hypocrites.
Additionally, 3dfx's progaganda tactic had convinced a number of people that 32-bit color was not "needed" last year. There were a number of people who claimed to have owned NVIDIA cards repeating this same 3dfx party line. Funny, these NVIDIA owners actually post frequently in 3dfx Voodoo3 newsgroup last year but hardly ever participated in any newsgroup meant for NVIDIA cards. Does anyone actually believe that these NVIDIA "supporters" would somehow changed their views on 32-bit color? That would be hypocritical if they did.
Finally and most importantly, I do not see any effort by DominoBoy to determine the views that today's participants had last year to see if these current NVIDIA supporters who are now bashing the Radeon switched sides on this 32-bit color issue. He simply assumed that they did switched sides without even asking them what they believed last year.
There is no doubt that there will be a few true-blue NVIDIA fanatics who will switch sides on the 32-bit color issue whenever they see fit. But to exagerate this element to the point that one has to claim that he feels ashamed or embarrased (e.g. DominoBoy) to own an NVIDIA card is a bit too much. It is only a video card. There is no need to feel ashamed.
I know for example that a number of 3dfx supporters last year deliberately lied about the video card (Voodoo3 that is), the competition (NVIDIA that is), among other things. Their lying did not make me feel ashamed to purchase and own a Voodoo3 2000 nor was I ashamed of owning shares of 3dfx stocks. This is only a video card. There is no need to feel ashamed or embarrassed.
Sunner wrote:
<< And how many games out there do 3 rendering passes? >>
Very few, I assume. I'm only aware of one game engine that allegedly is able to do single-pass triple texturing. That game engine is Quake III.
Deeko
Lifer
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
Oh man....some of these things are just begging to be shot down Someone said awhile back that the Radeon has more of a memory bottleneck because it's memory is only running at 166 MHz...OMG that is the funniest thing I've heard today. It's 166 Mhz, but it's DDR, oh geez that SDR on the MX really blows it away! Sorry, it was really bugging me that no one pointed that out. Also, someone said, The MX is faster, just look at my 3DMark score....OMG that's even funnier than the first one! 3DMark is THE WORST benchmark ever. How could you possibly base the performance of two cards based on 3DMark alone?? 3DMark isn't good for comparing anything outside of a single system...and it's not even all that great at that. The Radeon is better in every aspect except for price. I was even considering the Radeon 32MB over a V5, and I was looking for a high end card, not a budget card. The Radeon is the clear winner here. 32 bit is better, those of you that can't see it are either a) partially colorblind(many many males are) or b) playing games that don't take advantage of it.
Someone said awhile back that the Radeon has more of a memory bottleneck because it's memory is only running at 166 MHz...OMG that is the funniest thing I've heard today. It's 166 Mhz, but it's DDR, oh geez that SDR on the MX really blows it away! Sorry, it was really bugging me that no one pointed that out. Also, someone said, The MX is faster, just look at my 3DMark score....OMG that's even funnier than the first one! 3DMark is THE WORST benchmark ever. How could you possibly base the performance of two cards based on 3DMark alone?? 3DMark isn't good for comparing anything outside of a single system...and it's not even all that great at that. The Radeon is better in every aspect except for price. I was even considering the Radeon 32MB over a V5, and I was looking for a high end card, not a budget card. The Radeon is the clear winner here. 32 bit is better, those of you that can't see it are either a) partially colorblind(many many males are) or b) playing games that don't take advantage of it.Deeko you're right but you can't get through to these guys. They bought a nVidia and damned if it isn't the best. Must be kind of nice going through life completely deluded.
Deeko
Lifer
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
<< Id stick with the MX.
The 32megs DDR version is only clocked at 166 in core and memory and thus is still bottlenecked.
You can overclock it but with 6ns on the memory it wont reach past 175 max and even then need to get a heatsink and fan combo to go tad higher which in it self will cost more. >>
BANG there it is! That is rich! Taz, you're right, they must not think very much if they think that. He even said
<< The 32megs DDR version >>
, hello, you used the term DDR in the sentence.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,003
- 126
The Radeon outperforms the GF2 MX in high resolution, 32 bit colour situations because of Hyper-Z technology. That is common knowledge, especially in this case where you are comparing a Radeon DDR to a GF2 MX SDR. Even the Radeon SDR outperforms the GF2 MX because of Hyper-Z and its memory bandwidth saving techniques.
For raw framerates however the GF2 MX is the king, so if you don't mind playing at 640 x 480 or 800 x 600 then that's your best bet.
As for the issue of 16 bit vs 32 bit, it's the same sort of thing when somebody starts screaming about how you don't need more than 24/30 FPS in a 3D game. They are spouting BS and don't have a clue what they are talking about. 32 bit colour makes a huge difference over 16 bit colour.
Overall I'd say the Radeon is the better card.
For raw framerates however the GF2 MX is the king, so if you don't mind playing at 640 x 480 or 800 x 600 then that's your best bet.
As for the issue of 16 bit vs 32 bit, it's the same sort of thing when somebody starts screaming about how you don't need more than 24/30 FPS in a 3D game. They are spouting BS and don't have a clue what they are talking about. 32 bit colour makes a huge difference over 16 bit colour.
Overall I'd say the Radeon is the better card.
To all those who vigerously argued their opinion:
I've decide to keep the Radeon 32MB DDR. That along with my ASUS P3V4X motherboard and a Pentium III 800MHz Copermine 133MHz FSB with 256 MB RAM should give me a substantial performance increase over the Pentium 233MMX with 128MB RAM and a Diamond Stealth 3D 3000 4MB video card I'm currently running. I wanted to go with an Athlon but I got the motherboard for free from a vendor I use for work and I'm on a budget so it came down to saving $120 or so on a new MB.
Thanks for all your posts,
agaraffa
I've decide to keep the Radeon 32MB DDR. That along with my ASUS P3V4X motherboard and a Pentium III 800MHz Copermine 133MHz FSB with 256 MB RAM should give me a substantial performance increase over the Pentium 233MMX with 128MB RAM and a Diamond Stealth 3D 3000 4MB video card I'm currently running. I wanted to go with an Athlon but I got the motherboard for free from a vendor I use for work and I'm on a budget so it came down to saving $120 or so on a new MB.
Thanks for all your posts,
agaraffa
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter