Creative (3Dlabs) Wildcat4 7110 and 7210

[Random Variable]

http://www.3dlabs.com/product/wildcat4/index.htm

I don't know about you, but I lost interest in 3Dlabs after they became an wholly-owned subsidiary of Creative.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vespasian
http://www.3dlabs.com/product/wildcat4/index.htm

I don't know about you, but I lost interest in 3Dlabs after they became an wholly-owned subsidiary of Creative.

me too. :disgust:

 

[nuller]

I wish we could get a Radeon 9700 Pro with 384MB+ RAM..

 

[RanDum72]

Any game benchmarks of that card?

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Originally posted by: Vespasian
http://www.3dlabs.com/product/wildcat4/index.htm

I don't know about you, but I lost interest in 3Dlabs after they became an wholly-owned subsidiary of Creative.

Yeah, because being owned by Creative suddenly means they no longer produce the best workstation graphics cards

Jeez, grow up will you...

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Originally posted by: RanDum72
Any game benchmarks of that card?

It'd be creamed by a GF3 in a lot of games. It's a workstation card, it's not designed to play games and as such, doesnt...
There'd be very little point in outfitting a 9700 with 384Mb ram, because; a)The Cost, b)The lack off support in the Radeon architecture and c)What the heck are you going to do with it at the moment or in fact, for the next 2 years or so?

 

[Czar]

http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/p9/

no card on the planet that can beat the wildcat in fsaa quality
http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/wildcatiii/

 

[DaFinn]

When talking about future 3D products Creative were keen to point out the target of being able to see 3D chips at the 'SoundBlaster price point', in other words around the $99 mark. Given that P9 is a cut down version of P10 and that the manufacturing cost of the .15µ process has been going down does P9 represent a good opportunity for Creative to reach this price point?

"VP560 at 99,-" anybody?

-DaFinn

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000

Originally posted by: Vespasian
http://www.3dlabs.com/product/wildcat4/index.htm

I don't know about you, but I lost interest in 3Dlabs after they became an wholly-owned subsidiary of Creative.

Yeah, because being owned by Creative suddenly means they no longer produce the best workstation graphics cards

Yes, because they're no longer focused solely on high-end 3D accelerators.

 

[Woodchuck2000]

They're still focused entirely on workstation cards, high end or otherwise. There are currently no plans to adapt the technology for mainstream use and even if that does happen it's highly unlikely to affect the quality of the Wildcats.
I'm willing to bet that if Intel had bought 3Dlabs and chosen to release a low end derivative of the technology you'd see that as a good thing. The Wildcat 4 has had fantastic reviews regardless of its parent company and I see no indication that the quality of future cards will decrease. It all boils down to senseless Creative bashing.

 

[LH]

Incorrect.

They are still solely focused on workstation graphic cards. The VP9 and VP10 are not going to be consumer cards.

They have the WildCat 4, WildCat 3, Wildcat VP, and the Oxygen line of cards, all are pro graphic cards. All are midrange to high end, as has always been the case with 3DLabs with the exception of the Permedia cards.

 

[Random Variable]

It all boils down to senseless Creative bashing.

Where is it written that I'm not allowed to not like Creative because of their ravenous appetite for smaller computer companies? You're too sensitive.

I'm willing to bet that if Intel had bought 3Dlabs and chosen to release a low end derivative of the technology you'd see that as a good thing.

I'm willing to bet that you are wrong.

 

[Random Variable]

BTW, I wasn't too happy when 3Dlabs bought Intense3D.

 

[nuller]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
What the heck are you going to do with it at the moment or in fact, for the next 2 years or so?

Unreal Tournament 2003, and all games coming out next year (such as Doom III) need more than 128MB. For example, UT2003 even with current graphics settings needs much more than 128MB graphics memory to run it's smoothest, and there's also a hidden UltraHigh graphics mode that will only show/run on a graphics card with 256MB memory or more.. it'll need even more memory if you want to run at an ultra high resolution, or you want to enable antialiasing. Now just wait for Doom III.

 

[nuller]

BTW, according to Daniel Vogel of Epic, for each frame, UltraHigh mode needs more than 180MB graphics memory for textures and geometry information alone.. that's without the frame buffer, antialiasing stuff, and everything else the graphics card itself needs. He also said that it would use much more if you added a few meshes.. players/skins, etc.

We need 256MB, 384MB, and 512MB graphics cards now. It could be as high as 1GB-2GB or higher once we get close to truly real-time photorealistic graphics within the next few years.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: nuller

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
What the heck are you going to do with it at the moment or in fact, for the next 2 years or so?

Unreal Tournament 2003, and all games coming out next year (such as Doom III) need more than 128MB. For example, UT2003 even with current graphics settings needs much more than 128MB graphics memory to run it's smoothest, and there's also a hidden UltraHigh graphics mode that will only show/run on a graphics card with 256MB memory or more.. it'll need even more memory if you want to run at an ultra high resolution, or you want to enable antialiasing. Now just wait for Doom III.

carmack said that doom3 will reqire around 96mb memory, would be kinda dumb to design a game using something that hardly any graphics card will have at the time

 

[nuller]

He said 96MB.. for what? Minimum? Low quality? Textures only? And when did he say that? A YEAR AGO? Doom III will need much more than 96MB to run top speed, with no stutters, maximum detail. I guarantee it. Unless they plan on making it look worse than a year old game (UT2003).