• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Geforce 2 Ultra (295/530) slower than a geforce 3?

F

fkloster

Diamond Member
...in gaming @ 1152x864x32bitx120hz ONLY (...this is the best SWEET spot for me anyways) . I ask this because I ONLY game @ this resolution & see so many people talking about how fast this Geforce 3 is but is it really? I thought the core is actually slower than an Ultra and the memory is the same or slower? 🙂
 
flokster, you have to realize that the geforce 3 has a much higher effective fillrate then the geforce 2. Only a few games really tax it at that resolution and color depth. So for olders games it can be a bit slower, but newer games with higher detail and polygon counts will start to really strain the geforce 2.
 
I am just finding it so hard to 'Not Like' my Ultra card in comparison to the geforce 3 cards. Games I like to play:

1) Nascar 4
2) Giants
3) Sacrifice
4) Q3: Team Arena
5) Tribes 2

At my resolution & current clocks, the ultra still 'bests' this geforce 3 doesn't it?
 
I beleive you would get more consistant framerates over you ultra. Remember that your ultra is memory bandwidth contrained. That is where the geforce 3 has the biggest advantage. A game like tribes 2 with all the details cracked up and 30+ people on the scren can make your card crawl when the action gets to heavy.
 
This is the part that i hate about Nvidia, Ppl who just bought there GF2 Ultras like a couple months ago were looking for long term hold out after they shelled out the funds for a GF flagship. Now the newest card from them forces there previous card to be obsolete after only 4 to 5 months????? WTF is up with that, a GF2 that can't run T2 now, what will it be good for 9 months from this date?

Never again will i buy an Nvidia product.:|
 
Effective fillrate floskster. Look at the fillrate of the radeon. Its less then half that of the GTS, yet it performs pretty well for its given fillrate.

Look at it this way,

newer more comlpex, more detailed games will run faster on the geforce 3.
Older games with less complexity and detail will run faster on a geforce 2.

with your mix of games currently, I would suggest staying with ultra until your unhappy with it. Also just wait for the next thing in 6 months.
 


<< I sure wouldn't mind playing Nascar 4 with FSAA... >>



Damn that game looks sweet anyways without FSAA. I couldn't even imagine it with FSAA &amp; smooth... 😕



<< I would suggest staying with ultra until your unhappy with it... >>



I don't have a choice on that one. My heart weighs heavy for the arrival of the Geforce 3 Ultra with a whopping...:

128MB/3.0 nanosecond DDR Infineon memory bank 😀
 
<< Damn that game looks sweet anyways without FSAA. I couldn't even imagine it with FSAA &amp; smooth... >>

What framerates are you getting in Nascar 4? Also pls tell me what settings you use (and how many cars on the track). I play at 1024*768*16 with about 20 cars on the track. The framerates aren't that good, between 20-30FPS but I see the jaggies quite clearly which bothers me more than the framerate. Your resolution is just one up from mine so it can't be THAT big a difference, or is there?

 
andreasl, I have all the settings maxed, visability maxed and 42 car heats. Only time that it slows down is when there is a big pile up. Gets choppy as hell then, but without event, quite smooth. I have not checked the frame rates. How do I do that?



<< try running nascar 4 with quinctex turned on >>



A geforce 3 option I presume? 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top