Video questions, gaming and 3d work related

[DemonFlight]

(Note, the forum seemingly ate my first attempt at posting this, so apologies if it shows up again)


This post is going to ramble, so bear with me.

I'm interested in some high end video applications, most notably programs like Bryce 4.0, 3d Studio Max, Maya, etc.

Obviously with such applications a good video card is needed.

As such, I've been digging about eBay and looked at some older 3d accelerators, Wildcats, Oxygens, 3dlabs, cards like that.

I'm going to build a rig (once again, let's hear it for eBay) for this, a dual, perhaps quad Xeon machine running Win NT (no, don't try to convert me to win2k, I don't like it).

I'd also like for the machine to play *some* games, but since this is win NT, I'm not overly interested in max FPS as most of the games I'll be playing are not 1st person shooters.

Now, having said all of that, would I be better off buying a new video card, such as a nice Matrox or mid-range nVidia or VooDoo 5, that would give me a better overall experience, or are the mission-specific 3d accelerators I mentioned above do better for the main task of the computer?

Laughingly I ran SpecViewPerf on my current VooDoo 3 2000 (under win98 and and k6-2/500) and the results were of course laughable, would I get similiar results from the nVidias and Matroxs or is it just the VooDoo 3 is ill-suited to the benchmark.

Last question:

What kind of "all purpose" benchmark exists to test 2d speeds amongst more consumer oriented video cards and the high-end 3d accelerators? Most of the benchmarks I've encountered are of the Quake 2/Unreal Tournament FPS type of test.

And finally (whew!) just out of curiousity, how well would a wildcat (or the like) video accelerator run quake 2? These cards support OpenGL almost exclusively, so I would imagine they would score very well, but I've not seen a Quake 2 benchmark with one.

Any light you can shed will be appreciated.

DF

 

[Demonic]

The geforce quadro cards are the only series I know that work well on both. Those are some old cards you're talking about and neither of the two standard cards you listed will run Maya. For that you need a GL card.

From the cards you speak of and the way you listed them I am going to assume you are looking at old and low budget cards.. A 32mb quadro 2 can be purchased for about $200 while the 64mb version runs something like $600. You could pick up an original quadro for about $100 and a quadro 3 for something like $750.. These preform about as well as the geforce 1, 2 & 3 in games but support applications such as Maya and Maria.

 

[Rand]

Most of the true professional level 3D rendering cards perform pretty poorly in gaming, and most consumer graphics cards perform pretty poorly in professional level 3D rendering apps.

If you want a mix of both the best option for you would probably be something along the GeForce 1/2/3 line which are meant for gaming and so perform quite well in that respect, and are also reasonably capable 3D rendering cards. All of the GeForce line also have their Quadro variants whcih are aimed specifically at 3D rendering, though at a much higher price point then the regular GF cards.

You can forget Matrox, 3dfx, and any nVidia cards prior to the GeForce1 as those are completely unsuitable for 3D rendering apps.
ATi's Rage series cards, and the original Radeon is also terrible for 3D rendering apps.
The ATi Radeon 8XXX series performs extremely well in both gaming, and 3D rendering apps, as does the FireGL 8700, and 8800.
The rest of the FireGL line, and pretty much any 3DLabs cards are not at all viable gaming solutions.

Depending on your price point I'd look towards a GF1/2/3, or a Quadro variant. The GF1/2/3 can be 'modified' in to a Quadro varient by changing some resistors on the card.
The ATi Radeon 8XXX series are also an option. The FireGL 8700 and 8800 with be the ideal solution IMHO, but their in low availablility at present and the price is pretty high also.

 

[DemonFlight]

Rand-

Thanks for the info. You mention this:

>>The rest of the FireGL line, and pretty much any 3DLabs cards are not at all viable gaming solutions.<<

Are you referring to *just* 3d level games (quake, et al.) or 2d as well? If 2d as well, can you explain further?

Thanks
DF

 

[Rand]

<< Rand-

Thanks for the info. You mention this:

>>The rest of the FireGL line, and pretty much any 3DLabs cards are not at all viable gaming solutions.<<

Are you referring to *just* 3d level games (quake, et al.) or 2d as well? If 2d as well, can you explain further?

Thanks
DF >>



Their reasonably capable in 2D gaming situuations, but very few games are strictly 2D anymore.

 

[DemonFlight]

>>Their reasonably capable in 2D gaming situuations, but very few games are strictly 2D anymore. <<

Not being much of a gamer, can you explain further? I was under the (apparently false) assumption that games such as Starcraft, Nox, Diablo, et al, didn't make use of 3d runtime routines, where is the flaw in my thinking?

DF

 

[BFG10K]

? I was under the (apparently false) assumption that games such as Starcraft, Nox, Diablo, et al, didn't make use of 3d runtime routines, where is the flaw in my thinking?

Yes, you're quite correct. The number of 2D games in existance is quite high and will likely stay that way for a long time.

I think what Rand means is that 3D engines no longer run under software rendering which means you need a 3D accelerator as the game only runs under hardware acceleration.