Geforce 3 - alive and kicking

[nRollo]

"I was agreeing with you. Guess the sarcasm light wasn't blinking brightly enough."
OK, sarcasm is less obvious when written.

"That's a load of horse crap. Cards like the 8500 and GF3 work fine with lower resolutions or any other senario that doesn't include intensive memory bandwidth."
Oh I don't know Bunny. Seems to me my 9700 is lots faster at 12X10, or 16X12, with all detail settings at high in most games, without AA/AF.
<gasp! someone who doesn't care about AA/AF! call the police!>

 

[BlvdKing]

I still run quincunx AA on my overclocked GF 3 Ti 200 on Quake based games and WC3. This is at 1024x768. No AF though - but it doesn't make much difference when your involved in trying to survive. The FPS aren't great but usually stay around or above 60 FPS.

 

[chsh1ca]

I take it you guys haven't seen even the R9500Pro in action then? Personally, I am saving up for a 9500Pro or a 9700Pro, because my MSI GF3 Ti200 128MB is lackluster by comparison.

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: chsh1ca
I take it you guys haven't seen even the R9500Pro in action then? Personally, I am saving up for a 9500Pro or a 9700Pro, because my MSI GF3 Ti200 128MB is lackluster by comparison.

I've owned a Radeon 9500, 9500 Pro, 9700 and 9700 Pro. I still miss my Geforce3 and am now currently enjoying a GF4 128MB at 300/662. It's a preference thing.

 

[Rogozhin]

IT is a preference thing.

I've owned a geforce 4 ti4200, geforce 4 ti4400, geforce 3 ti200 and sold them all because I liked my 8500 better, let alone my 9700.

Rogo

 

[CurtCold]

Went from GF2MX400, to R8500 64MB, to 9500PRO 128MB. Do quake 3 games look superior compared to the 400? Oh yeah, I was having to run Command and Conquer and mohaa at 800*600. The only game that was starting to lag behind on the 8500 was Operation Desert Storm.

I think the huge maps involved with ODS was the main culpret there. The 9500pro looks no better at performance settings with these games than the 8500 did. Crank up to quality, and 16x*6x and there is a def difference. Games are more crisp and have more vivid colors. Esp Ut2K3.

Better than a gf3? yes, better than a 4200? yes. My friend that I lan game with once a month has the exact same rig that I do, except he has a msi gf4 ti4200. Mohaa doens't look that much different, but there is alot less tearing in games with the 9500.

If you don't feel justified by getting a better card, then that's your business. If your not running the latest games, then there really is no need. I wouldn't have purchased a 9500pro to run CS, or just MOHAA for that fact. But 2K3, SC, BF1942 DC all look better and run smooth at 1024*768*32 with 16x6x. Not too shabby imo.

It's all about what performance level is acceptable for you. Some people are happy with 25-30fps, other's aren't happy if they aren't screaming along at 100+fps.

 

[Wurrmm]

I am also using an old PNY Ti500. However, I am pretty sure I will get the NV35 when it comes out.

 

[Rogozhin]

why not consider the nv35 and the r400?

rogo

 

[Blurry]

merlocka, I hav the same card as you, Gainward Geforce 3 (Original) and the same overclock.
I still think its a great card; I can play all my games (Mafia, JK2, UT2k3, etc) @1024x768 with 2X FSAA and Aniso smoothly
I'm still going to keep it, but I will defintely look into nv35 because...I want to play DOOM III

 

[Whitersx29]

what are u guys using to overclock your geforce 3?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: CurtCold...but there is alot less tearing in games with the 9500.

well there should not be any with either... if you turn vsync on!

 

[fluxquantum]

my g/f uses my old gainward geforce 3 ti-200 (128MB). she likes to play MOH, BF1942, NOLF2, and splinter cell. they all look great. it's still a wonderful card and does the job well.

 

[rogue1979]

I play my games at 1600 x 1200 no AF or AA. Looks fantastic using the Omega 1.1.82, and very fast using my GF4.

 

[chin311]

Yeah, i've been putting off a video card upgrade forever.

Still chugging with a Geforce 4 Mx440, sad? i know.

Anyway, only game i really play often is Warcraft 3, and i can run that @ 1024 max detail at more than 50 fps.

But, i may buy a new 9600 when they are out, because i'm gonna be getting Planetside.

 

[Creig]

My GF3 Ti200 o/ced to Ti500 is fine for my backup 1600+ Palomino, but it was strangling my 1800+ T-Bred @ 1.9Ghz. Hence the move to a 9500 (soft modded to a 9700 Pro). The difference was incredible. We've finally gotten to the point where framerates are no longer the controlling factor when purchasing a video card. Today's cards are so fast as to make this a moot point. 100 FPS looks exactly the same as 300 FPS.

But increasing resolution or adding AA/AF will make games look better. If people want to run UT2003 at 640x480 with all details on minimum, that's up to them. Personally, I'd rather run it at 1280x1024 with 4x AA, 8x AF and all textures on high to enjoy the game the way the programmers intended.

 

[rogue1979]

I've got to ask something here. Why are people running 1024 x 768 or 1280 x 1024 resolutions using AA? I prefer 1600 x 1200 with no AA, for me it looks better and still removes almost all the jaggies. It usually gives you faster framerates too. Yeah, I know for some of us who have used Radeon 9700 Pro's you can still use 1600 x 1200 and AA. But for alot of people with good overclocked GF3's, GF4's, 128MB Radeon 8500's and 9500's, and 9500 Pro's coupled with a fast cpu, 1600 x 1200 without AA is a viable option that can still produce very good frame rates.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: rogue1979
Why are people running 1024 x 768 or 1280 x 1024 resolutions using AA? I prefer 1600 x 1200 with no AA, for me it looks better and still removes almost all the jaggies.

I don't run 1600 x 1200 for a number of reasons, but in your example, 1600x1200 would reduce many of the jaggies, but it would do nothing to get rid of shimmering. Also, in most games 1600x1200 makes text and HUD/GUI elements difficult to read or unmanageable even on a large monitors. I'm using a 1900FP true 19'' VIS LCD atm that runs at 1280x1024 native and there are still games I play where the GUI elements border on being too small. Also, I prefer running high levels of AF, and I can run significantly faster at 1280 with all in-game effects cranked to the max with 16x or 8x quality AF and 2x AA faster than I would be able to run 1600x1200 with the same levels of AF (I also have a G420). I also don't have to deal with the tiny text and GUIs either and massive drops in minimum FPS in intense action at 1600x1200. I don't crank up AA like some people b/c it degrades IQ IMO, 2x is a nice balance for me b/c the hit to performance isn't as significant and eliminates jaggies and shimmering at 1280.

Chiz

 

[Creig]

Unless you have a REALLY high end monitor, your refresh rate at 1600x1200 is dismal. I think my Samsung 955DF runs at a whopping 68Hz. But at 1280x1024 I can bump it up to 75Hz to get rid of screen flicker.

 

[Naruto]

I still have my gainward geforce 3 ti200 @ 240/540. It has faced problems with the recent detonator series (constant screen blanking). How well can it play UT2k3? It is in a p4 1.6 setup with 512mb pc2700 ddr. I plan to change the mobo and cpu soon.

 

[skyking]

I've been snapping up the GF3 good deals on the fs/ft forum. Plenty good for me and my friends, we don't spend hours a day gaming, maybe hours a month. I can build a nice gaming rig for the price of a first rate vidcard, getting parts here. I love this place!

 

[BFG10K]

You guys have hit upon the secret of the universe- the FSAA, AF, etc. is mostly HYPE and pretty much not needed for gaming.

but it would do nothing to get rid of shimmering.

High resolution serves to reduce a lot of artifacts and that definitely includes shimmering (texture and edge) and pixel popping.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

My old visiontek ti200 is in my fiance's pc.

 

[chsh1ca]

Heh, so let's just put it down to, if you spend less than 10 hours a month gaming, and don't foresee that changing in the near future, don't bother upgrading past a GF3. Otherwise, you'll be doing yourself a favour. I'm personally trying to find an R9500Pro for under $200 canadian, but that doesn't seem likely... I wish I had a rich friend who frequently upgraded his machine...

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Rogozhin
Are you guys with the geforce 3s turning up all ingame options?

and what resolutions are you running?

rogo

1024...

I just threw it (GF3 @Ti500 speeds) in another box... I just got my 9500 pro but its not running yet since my mobo went down the tubes...

That was my first POWERFUL video card...

 

[snowwie]

I'm in the same situation as you

my geforce2 ultra still hold its own in games, and I'm afraid that if I upgrade now it won't be a significant enough boost for me