• 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.

Voodoo5 6000 vs. GF2 Ultra's Results

T

tnaw

Banned
The development of Voodoo5 6000 had gone through several observable changes.On the first demo sample (Fig. 1), collocations of 4 VSA-100 chips were found entirely different comparing to that of the original design (Fig. 2). In November 2000, 3dfx display the final version on which the Intel PCI-to-PCI bridge chip that had been on there before is replaced by a HINT PCI-to-PCI bridge chip (Fig. 1).
...
From the above results, it can be know that Voodoo5 6000 is no over +5% faster than GeForce2 Ultra, while it has been show that there will be at least a +25% performance lead of NV20 over GeForce2 Ultra in the NV20 preview. So it should be more smarter to wait for a just coming NV20 than rush out to bid that Quantum 3D Voodoo5 6000 PC (if it was there) at e Bay.

Voodoo5 6000 vs. GF2 Ultra's Results
 
Are you insane? I LOVE my FSAA to death! I can't stand to play any games without it anymore (with the exception of Q3A, but then again, i don't play that anymore). I'll hang on to my Voodoo5 until its final hour..
 
Christ, this guy is posting his little exercise in speculation everywhere! And this comment from it baffles me: "It should be noticed that this speculation method could only get practicable results under 32bit color mode, because of the somewhat deviant behaviors of Voodoo5 cards on 16bit color mode." WTF??
 
Who cares its not like this card is ever going to see the light of day?

Besides isn't NVidias 2X2 FSAA = 3dfx 4X FSAA?
 
geez paruhd0x, you act like it's a good thing that 3dfx is gone...i don't keep loyalties to stoopid graphics card companies, i just buy whatever i think it best for my needs, i've owned 3dfx, matrox, and nvidia, and all were good for there day (voodoo1, g200, TNT, voodoo3, G400, and now Voodoo5)
 
Dont need FSAA when you can run your ultra card at 1600X1200 with decent frame rates. Heck you dont need it if you can run at 1152X768 or higher-like I do with my Radeon.
 
"Dont need FSAA when you can run your ultra card at 1600X1200 with decent frame rates"

Who runs their games at 1600x1200x32? Very few people, if any.

And imho, 1024x768 w/2xFSAA looks much better than 1280x1024 w/noFSAA.
 
You guys need to play games other then UT and Q3. FSAA make big difference in quality in other games.
 
I went from an "ATI All in wonder 128 (pci,16MB)to a GF2 ultra and I COULDNT be happier with it😀My 3dmark when from 1000 to 8000.Who needs fsaa if it is in 1152x864@100hz and get a kick a$s frame rate?Do you pause the game to look at that "stairways"? or just enjoy the game and not notice the SMALL imperfections?
 
I have to agree that FSAA the way its done now is pointless.
Since the performance hit is similar, doubling the resolution is far better than going to 2X FSAA IMO.

Of course I dont play racing games and flight sims.
 
I only play in FSAA when I play driving games. I would rather play FPS in 1280x1024 resolution and sports games on my dreamcast. Flightsims and Everquest would be a couple of other types of games I would play in FSAA if I actually did play them.
 
In the case when your monitor supports a max resolution of 1024x768 with a refresh no lower than 100 Hz and you want to stay at 1024x768, FSAA really comes in handy. FSAA rocks. A high resolution doesn't do what FSAA does by any means. without FSAA you will ALWAYS get pixelation, it's just that at higher resolutions, the pixelations are smaller.
 
"Besides isn't NVidias 2X2 FSAA = 3dfx 4X FSAA?" Well 2 times 2 does equal 4. A Firestone is black and round, does that make it as good as a Michelin?

Depends on the game, on some fsaa means everything, others it means Jack. In my flight and driving sims nvidia 16 bit fsaa has color banding, 32 bit is good but that eats up resources that could have been better used for sample rate or res. Near vertical and horizontal edges don't clean up. A GTS is a good card but not for evrybody.
 
"Since the performance hit is similar, doubling the resolution is far better than going to 2X FSAA IMO"

The performance hit is nowhere close. Running 1024x768 w2xFSAA is nowhere close to the same fps as 2000+ resolution. More like a couple frames per second difference (with and w/out FSAA).
 
Wingnut Pez -you can run your games at 1600X1200X32 at decent frame rates with a Geforce Ultra. Hey-you like FSAA, then nock yourself out. Ill stick to high resolutions.
 
I don't know about you, but if you ask me, 1600 doesn't look much better then 1280 when in 3D games. why? well it doesn't change too much in the game. the only difference you might see is smaller pixels, and lower refresh rates (and possible quality problems).

it DOES change things in windows, you get a much larger desktop, and things like that..
 
Soccerman- I totally agree. After 1280X1024 you really dont notice much difference. Although, i notice more of a difference on my 21inch monitor than I do with my friends 17inch monitor.
 
tboo, ok, yeah the larger the monitor, the more you will see the difference between 1600 and 1280, just like on todays monitors, 640X480 looks like crap..
 
I'm not saying that 1600x1200x32 is not possible. I'm just saying that people always use that resolution to compare FSAA to, and realistically extremely few people use that resolution to play games.

Of course, comparing a V5-6000 to anything is pretty irrelevant since it won't be available.
 
Disclaimer first: this applies to the games I play only, which is mostly RTS's, that dont really make much use of high end 3D cards, RPG, same thing as with RTS's, and finally, FPS's, which definately make alot of use of high end 3D cards.

And in the latter, 1024x768x32x2X FSAA is too slow for my tastes with either a GTS or a V5, yes I've used both, though the card Im using most is a GF DDR.
With a GTS, I'd say the peak res to run most FPS's at before it gets unbearably slow is 1280x960x32, and that does IMO look better than 800x600x2X FSAA on either card.

As for no performance hit, looking at Anand's Ultra review, in 800x600x32, the Ultra drops from 141 to 86 FPS using 1.5x1.5 FSAA, and all the way down to 54 FPS using 2x2 FSAA with hi LOD, while the V5 drops from 97 to 56 FPS under the same res, I'd call that more than "a few fps" in both cases.

As for people with 15" monitors, you shouldnt be spending money on a new vid card, you should buy a new monitor.
Getting a GTS or V5 for use with a 15" is like buying another 512 MB of RAM for your P166 MMX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top