Is 3dfx up to their old tricks?

[NFS4]

<< Many GF2 Ultra reviews mentioned the 250 memory as a main point and didn't mention the final clocking speed. >>


The reviews I have seen mention that the card ships with 250MHz rated memory but ships at 230/460. I haven't seen anyone post in a review that the card ships at 250/500.

Besides, wasn't most GeForce DDR memory rated at 166/333, yet it shipped at 150/300. I didn't hear them complaining back then.

 

[Dean]

Extreme i don't believe 3dfx has inferior products, the only difference is that they don't put up staggering numbers in benchmarks. Thats only 1 part of the reason people will buy a vid card

the 5500 has:
above average image quality in 2d and 3d
good framerates at most resolutions
great build quality
the best fsaa available
more game support than any other card

Why their pr can't go into an interview and talk about the truth is beyond me

 

[NFS4]

<< Why blame Billy - he wants hits, doesn't he? The questions were fair questions. What about your title for this thread? Should I blame NFS4 for having a leading thread title? >>


Of course he wants hits, but why not ask about 3dfx's product instead of rubbing nVidia's and ATi's success in their face?

 

[Mem]

LOL... Truth? I don`t think 3DFX PR know what the truth is.

 

[xtreme2k]

i dont know how it ISNT any inferior product when u need 2 of them to outperform a Geforce256 DDR, a product released by nvidia 1 year ago.

i also dont know how a v5500 is superior than a G2GTS

yes they have FSAA
but nvidia also got FSAA

but honestly i rather play at 1600/32bit then play at 800/32BIT 2x/4x FSAA
you loose SO MUCH DETAILS by going to 1024/800 in the first place anyway

 

[Michael]

NFS4 - everytime a positive comment is made about a 3dfx product on this forum, tons of people jump in and throw some benchmark number or another out to show that the 3dfx product is &quot;inferior&quot;. Comparing to the competition is normal and a fair subject. I really don't see any major problems with what Bubba actually said.

3dfx's main problem with PR is that they missed a product cycle and are not the &quot;best&quot; anymore. That forces them to be more reactive to keep attention on their products. Nothing new here and it isn't just limited to videocards, heck, cola ads do the same darn thing quite often.

Michael

 

[Dean]

Extreme have you had first hands experience witha 5500??

the numbers in benchmarks are only part of the big picture

i have played on all the major platforms, geforce2 gts 32 meg, the 5500 and the radeon and all of them are very playable at any res up too 1280x1024(which is what all the monitors i played on will support)

i chose the radeon not because its the fastest, but because it had what i wanted which is high framerates at 32 bit color and looked damn good doing it. Alot of people will pick the nvidia line simply because of the framerates without seeing the merits of the competition. the 3dfx cards are right in there also a good mix of everything

Framerates ARE NOT EVERYTHING!!!

 

[xtreme2k]

well there is only a few things we look at before we buy a 3dcard

its frame rate
its price
its features

Framerate wise, GTS kicks V5500, simple as that
Price-wise, V5500 is more expensive than many GTS out there
Feature wise, V5500 and GTS got FSAA, V5500 has extra Tbuffer effects that i am yet to see to be implemented in a game. GTS got Hardware TnL that isnt implemented into any game also, but benefits in any OpenGL and Direct3d Games

it really looks like GTS is a clear winner

 

[Dean]

yes its a clear winner for YOU!!!

but not everyone, jumping around saying the gts is better just because you like its speed does not make 3dfx or ATI inferior.

everyone has different tastes and demands

 

[xtreme2k]

how is it a clear winner just for me?

u give me some hard evidents

 

[Czar]

<< Framerates ARE NOT EVERYTHING!!! >>



hear, hear, well said.

We the consumers want new stuff that is used and will be used, 3dfx, sorry to say, has not given us anything like that since the Voodoo1 came out.

 

[Hardware]

Just a point
Take my Radeon 64MB TV IN/OUT is was only $40 more then a 32 MB PURE GTS (elsa gladiac)
Featurelike the Radeon wipes the floor (dunno if i will see a dx8 game with the radeon!?)
Right now you can choose between a Radeon and a GTS but I dont see any point to favour a V5500

2D + Feature + 32bit + T&amp;L + AGPX4(quality) = Radeon
Speed + 16bit + T&amp;L + drivers + AGPX4 (speed) = GTS
Heating + (fake) T&amp;L + PCI66 (zombie) = V5500

 

[Dean]

Extreme lets say you wanted to play todays games, but also had a number of older glide titles that you love playing also

which card would you buy?? the 5500

If you wanted pure hard driven framerates at any res with some good features?? the gts or ultra

if you wanted good framerates at 32 bit with lots of eye candy and future ready? the radeon

it comes down to what a person wants....you like the nvidia products and thats a good choice for you, but everyone has different tastes

 

[xtreme2k]

you are correct about the older glide-only game

if those are a must for you

a 5500 is the card to get

 

[Czar]

Dean

You are sitting by your 800mhz computer with 256mb ram and a bigg ass monitor. Which card to buy GTS, Radeon or V5500.

Just look at that, the V5500 gives you the pleasure of playing old glide games like Turok or whatever it was called. But those games were designed for P166 with Voodoo1 card. It doesnt matter now if you can play your old games on V5500 because the computers and the cards are faster than the computers these old games were designed for.

You can get Glide wrappers so whats the use of getting a v5500 for glide?

 

[Dean]

Czar i see your point

if i was gonna choose which card would be better for me i would also choose the gts over the 5500

There are still alot of people who don't give a damn about quake3 or its framerates though(although i do).

the 5500 is a well balanced card that alot of people will like, it doesn't have fussy drivers that will drive a novice insane, it will adapt to any chipset on any motherboard without tweaks, it will play any game out there now and problably the near future also

to some people, those attributes are unbeatable!!

 

[RagingGuardian]

Get a V3 since they can be almost had for free these days. Check the hot deals forum.

3DFX needs to shut up and release a card that can actually compete with the rest. At their current pace they'd be arguing that the NV25 sent to reviewers was clocked at 400Mhz while retail cards are clocked at 380MHZ.

BTW, I'm getting my Radeon next week. I hope ATI can pull a miracle a deliver some performance increasing drivers.

 

[Dean]

Raging unless you just want a higher score in 3dmark 2000 the radeon is more than fast enough for any game out there...trust me i know first hand

 

[NFS4]

The Radeon would be the card I would get if I were buying a card TODAY. It has a nice mix of features and performance. The GTS is nice, but the Radeon is slighty faster and the 16bit scores don't mean a damn to me (I mean who plays 16bit anymore anyway?).

The Ultra is just out of the question...too much money for the performance increase you get. It's another case of my nuts are bigger than yours. Same goes for the 6000.

As for the Voodoo 5 5500...if playing older GLIDE games at high FPS is your bag baby, then by all means go out and get it. FSAA hasn't gotten to the point where I can play ALL of my games at a reasonable level so I don't even fool with it (that goes for the Radeon, GTS, and 5500). I just keep my resolution at 1152x864 and above and I'm fine (for now). T-Buffer is a bigger joke than T&amp;L right now.

RagingGuardian, pick me up one while you're at it

As for 3dfx's PR. Take a page from Matrox and ATi...keep your mouth closed unless you have something good to say or are promoting a new product. Let your &quot;current&quot; product speak for itself. If it doesn't perform up to par, don't make excuses for it...just try to improve the drivers and do better the next generation.

I'm by no means out to bash 3dfx. Hell, I love the company and they make some nice cards. It's just that PR department has really tarnished my opinion of them.

 

[Dean]

Very well said NSF4

It all comes down to what a person wants, not what others tell them they want

 

[RagingGuardian]

I was planning on waiting for the Radeon Maxx but I'd probably have to wait for a long time so I'm picking up the Radeon. I've seen the Radeon in action and the 2D performance stomps my V3 3000 into the ground. Besides I know the future looks good for the Radeon when Carmack comments about great performance with all three pipelines utilized.

 

[BigToque]

NFS4

The reference board we received made use of 4ns ESMT SDRAM (M13L641664 4T), which is rated at 250MHz DDR (500MHz).
-- Anand Lal Shimpi

This is right from the GeForce2 Ultra review

So Bubba isnt talking out of his ass at all. What he says is true. You think, and he thinks nVidia is shipping the Ultra at 230/460, yet they sent out review cards to reviewers such as Anand with 250/500 memory.

What says you now?

 

[Sephiroth_IX]

<< What is clear is that they missed their product cycle. This is the third regurgitation of GeForce! It was our belief that a product cycle meant introducing a new product. How many times Nvidia expect the consumer to buy the same product? >>

AAAAAAHAHAHAHA. Can you say NAPALM?

 

[NFS4]

<< So Bubba isnt talking out of his ass at all. What he says is true. You think, and he thinks nVidia is shipping the Ultra at 230/460, yet they sent out review cards to reviewers such as Anand with 250/500 memory.

What says you now? >>


I'm not disputing that...like I said, it's a matter of yields. Some memory chips can do 250/500 and some will only do 230/460. Anand CLEARLY stated in his review that the Ultra ships at 230/460. They might have 60% of the memory pumping at 250/500 while the other 40% can reach 230/460. Rather than throw away 40% of your production, take a negligable speed hit and drop all down to run at 230/460. Makes perfect sense to me.

This is no different than when the Voodoo 3 3000 came out in speed bins of 143, 166, and 183. No doubt most (if not all) Voodoo 3 2000's hit at least 166MHz and reviews pointed that out. There's no difference here. Same as the TNT2 and TNT2 Ultra. Same chip, one with better yields than the other. Nothing has changed so what's the big deal? If nVidia was MARKETING an ULTRA claiming 250/500 while not all were shipping at THAT speed, that's another story. But this isn't the case.

And since we're pulling out quotes, let's see here:



<< Due to the fact that the 6 ns chips used on all DDR GeForce cards are rated to perform at 166 MHz, the stock clock speed of 300 MHz (a result of the memory running at 150 MHz x 2) can be exceeded in most cases. It is here, however, that we really see how overclockabilty can vary from chip to chip. Overclocked speeds ranged from a lowly 326 MHz (163 MHz x 2) in the Absolute Multimedia card to a high 347 MHz in Leadtek's WinFast GeForce 256 DDR Revision B card. >>


Anandtech/Matthew Witheiler - NVIDIA GeForce DDR Roundup (March 00)

Same thing here, DDR memory on the DDR GeForce was rated at 166/333. Did 3dfx bitch way back in March? I don't think so. Why bitch now?

What says you now?

 

[BigToque]

From your original quote:

They have announced they are shipping memory on the Ultra at 230MHz. They sent reviewers 250Mhz DDR. Why is that? If they ship 250 MHz DDR to editors to review and plan on using 230MHz DDR for the ?consumer? why didn?t they send 230MHz DDR to editors?

After the quote you said this:

The whole interview is full of BS! Why does 3dfx let this guy speak?

I'm just pointing out the fact that what Bubba said in this interview IS NOT BS at all, even though you are claiming it is.