• 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.

So do people really only buy video cards based on speed alone?

J

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
It seems nvidia is doing very, very well by simply winning benchmark tests across the board. Are we even looking at other features any longer? Obviously 3dfx's fsaa was somewhat of a misfire -- nice idea certainly. It helps lo-res, non-fps gamers the most.

I guess what I'm asking is this: is it possible to include a new feature in an upcoming video card that will cause most folks to buy that product based solely on that feature even if another product benches higher?
 
Sure, 32-bit color was like that. I suspect a lot of people bought a TNT card just so that they could see their games in true color, even at the cost of frame rate.

I'm awfully tempted to get Matrox again because of the 2D. It is sooo good.
 
Exactly. I remember back in the 80s when I bought a card based soley on the memory it had (256 vs 512 or whatever)...simply to reach higher resolutions (1024x768x16 on up)!

And later I remember comparing screenshots of a Voodoo1 to a Riva 128. One card was faster, the other looked much better. Here I had both cards in the same box so I didn't have to pick and choose.

Just wondering if nvidia's competitors will need to out bench the NVxx series to best them...or can it be done with a feature or two or twelve...
 
Quality and features appeal to me more than speed alone, especially if any potential extra speed has no benefit for my use. That's why I bought a Savage4 and if I could have any card available right now it would be a Radeon. Out of all announced cards it would be a Radeon AIW. Besides price, quality (including drivers) and features always prevent one card from being THE one to have.
 
With most of the top cards now, speed goes hand in hand with quality. Been a while where you had great speed and terrible visual quality. Most today are pretty good all around cards. Enough so that I chose speed first knowing everything else would be ok.
 
I prefer to look at a video card's overall abilities.

Compatibility, reputation, speed, featues, visual quality, etc...

Another big factor is which games I am playing and will be playing, in the near future. Because obviously, some cards run certain engines better than others.
 
Interesting Question. I was just about to order a CL GF-2. The thing is fast as hell. I wandered over to the Nvidia news groups and people are all complaining about the crappy visuals with those new 6.18 drivers that sped everything up so much. I also saw the screenshots of the horrid texture compression problems in Q3. It is most noticeable in the sky textures. I seem to remember another video card company that got bashed for the Q2 sky banding 🙂. It seems to me that Nvidia is tweaking their drives for the best benchmarks while sacrificing quality. The V5 5500 seems to be a bit better. I'm not crazy about the dual chip thing and the need for a separate power connector. This thing must put out some serious heat. The Radeon looks promising. I've never been a big ATI fan. I'm going to wait and see a bit before I jump on that bandwagon. My V3 3k is still holding its own. Plays UT, Q3, HL very nicely and has great 2D. Maybe that NEXT card that's just around the corner.....😉
 
oldfart, I generally agree with you. Should be interesting to see if Matrox's G800, which is supposedly the second coming if you listen to some zealots on this board, sells well even if it's a bit on the slow side.
 
I was watching Diablo II very carefully. Originally it was only going to support Glide. I was keeping an eye on the Glide emulators, however, if Diablo II came out and only supported glide I probably would have added a Doodoo card to go with my nVidia.
 
2d quality is something real important to me. Which is why i've got a 3dfx and not an nvidia. That and i can actually play counterstrike with 4x FSAA and it makes it better. I mean pretty much all the cards are in the "playable" FPS range. So who cares if one is like 50 fps more.
 
The reason I bought my Voodoo5 was based on the games that I play. I mostly play driving games, which are notorious for jaggies and aren't as demanding on the graphics card. At the time when I was comparing the V5 and GeForce 2's features, the GeForce's FSAA was still in the "hack" stage versus the V5's actual support. Therefore, V5 for me.
 
Then there is me. I can't believe no one brought up price more than they did. Frankly, the geforce2 MX sails far and above ANYTHING for low price/performance ratios. I spent literally hours sitting over pricewatch, and killerapp (why did Cnet have to spoil them) trying to find the best value card, then suddenly I saw a banner for a geforce2 MX. Not knowing what it was and seeing geforce2 for just over $100 (I am a recent PC convert from the mac world of locked hardware and was busy trying to puzzle out good components) I clicked, and lo and behold from 65-70% (more with overclocking) the performance of the GTS for about 40% the price. Sold me.

_______________________________
"If it's in Webster's, you had better belive I plan on using it"
Abit Kt7, eVGA geforce2 MX, TB 750, 256 meg pc133, plexwriter 12x10x32A
 
What I want:

Matrox quality RAMDAC (360Mhz gives 2048X1536X32@85Hz) again speed only affects the resolution and refresh rate. Wuality is a matter of how good it is designed, GET THIS CONCEPT STRAIGHT, I AM TIRED OF GOING ON RANTS BECAUSE PEOPLE THINK SPEED MEANS IMAGE QUALITY!!!

GeForce2 Ultra level speed or higher 🙂

Matrox type dual display, not GeForce MX (the MX is not nearly as versatile as the Matrox)

GeForce MX color control (digital vibrance control)

3dfx quality FSAA

Tile base rendering (Radeon?)

Matrox quality video input capability

Integrated FULL DVD decodeing, with sound output over a feature connector to the soundcard, full digital sound.

Quality cooling, well mounted, high efficiency heatsinks.

AGP 4X without fast write or sidebanding. With a PCI/64 66Mhz daughter card with the DVD and video input, but with a feature connector to the video card for the overlay.
 
Im with Wingznut, cost is a big factor for me. Im not going to buy a $650(??) dollar Voodoo 6000. If I were to ever spend that much, it would be on a card that can do tons of things, Like say and ATI All-in-Wonder Radeon. Thats where its at!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top