Voodoo 5 6000 preview

[BenSkywalker]

WingnutPEZ-



<< I run MDK2 and UT at 1024 resolution, with 2xFSAA on.
All of the above with details on max, and all at above acceptable frame rates. >>



What tweaks did you use to get MDK2 to perform with above acceptable FPS when enabling specular lighting? Rev's system is nigh identical to yours and he only hits 42.75FPS running 640x480 16bit no FSAA. What kind of tweaks are you using to run the highest detail mode on MDK2 and still hit above acceptable FPS?

At 1024x768 16ibt with 2x FSAA using the low quality lighting he is pushing 61FPS, but without high quality lighting enabled it can hardly be considered maximum detail.

Edit: Not too fond of this new way to link.

You have to go through a few pages to get to the benchmarks, he also shows several screenshots comparing the low quality lighting to the higher quality settings.

 

[Remedy]

Well Hardware, it figures you would come around sooner or later to bash on some company other than Nvidia. Why do ppl just keep coming around and talk about how many framerates you can get with a GF? Just because the v5 5500 might get lets say 75 frames verses a GF that is getting a 100 frames, that doesn't mean the V5 is a weak card. Now ppl comepare benchmarks to v5 verse a GF but do ppl ever judge image quality to GF against a V5? I doubt it because for 1, They probably never seen a V5 in action or 2 they are ashamed to admit with all those frames that the GF kicks off that it just doesn't look as good as a 3dfx or Ati or matrox.

 

[Wingznut]

Hardware, I did play 3dMark... But to tell you the truth, it wasn't a whole lot of fun.

I mean, the helicopter controlled like crap! Even when I used my FF joystick, it still had very slow response. The firing rates are too slow, and it's just got that one tiny little map. Sure, you go on to the next level, and the maps start looking better. But it still feels like the same thing over and over.

As for the rpg/rts game... Talk about no depth. The combat system sucked, not that I found anyone to combat. As a matter of fact, I had no idea what was going on. Just march your little troop around the square, I guess.



My point? I don't give a rat's @ss what 3dMark says, considering it's not an real application. Theoretical benchmarks don't mean sh*t to me. Real world apps do.

 

[Hardware]

lets set the actual highend gaming to 1600x1200 and then compare the fps
you are right it makes nosense to compare 640x480 130fps vs 100fs but 40fps vs 20fps at 1600x1200 is another thing

 

[Wingznut]

&quot;What tweaks did you use to get MDK2 to perform with above acceptable FPS when enabling specular lighting?&quot;

You didn't really expect there to be an answer to that question, right?

True, Ben. I didn't use the lighting, and it slipped my mind to mention.

I will admit that MDK2 is one title that benefits from hardware lighting. But the benefit is minimal, considering it really doesn't add much to the game (sidenote: where's all the added polygons that nVidia's been promising?), and I have no problem runnning the game otherwise.

 

[Hardware]

Just give us the feature list from the v5500 via 3dmark I dont need any fps!

 

[Wingznut]

I have a 19&quot; monitor, so 1600 resolution intrests me not at all.

Again, I'm just sticking with the real world applications.

 

[Wingznut]

I don't have 3dMark, Sandra, Winbench, or any other benchmark.

I don't care what they have to say.

I'll repeat myself one more time... All I care about is if my PC will run applications well, run them at above acceptable frame rates, and with perfect compatibility and stability. It's really quite simple.

Now Hardware... time for you to answer something for me.

If someone were to sneak into my family room at night, and swap out my V5 for a GTS... With the exception of crappier FSAA, how exactly would I benefit? My Q3 frame rates would be higher, but it's not like I'd even notice.

 

[Wingznut]

Oh yeah, my Deus Ex would look/run like crap too.

But that tree demo sure would be pretty!