Which 3D card??
M. H. Lok
I'm really confused here... Can someone please tell me which 3D card
to choose from: the Reactor 3D or the 3D Blaster??? Thanks in advance.
stielens
PC Magazine recently reviewed graphics cards and rated reactor the best 3D
graphics performer.
M. H. Lok <mh...@pl.jaring.my> wrote in article
<32907d4f...@news.jaring.my>...
jasonc
M. H. Lok wrote:
>
> I'm really confused here... Can someone please tell me which 3D card
> to choose from: the Reactor 3D or the 3D Blaster??? Thanks in advance.
Probly neither. I just recieved a copy of computer shopper december, and they
tested 10 cards. It seemed to me the ATI card had the fastest refresh rates
for both 3D and 2D. Shop around and read alot before you decide. Software
companies are now developing games for a new universal 3D prossessor type.
(somthing like that, read Comp Shopper ,Dec.)
D. B. Brown
M. H. Lok wrote:
> I'm really confused here... Can someone please tell me which 3D card
> to choose from: the Reactor 3D or the 3D Blaster??? Thanks in advance.
The two cards are identical in hardware, so the only real
difference is in price and software package. (Also, the Sierra
V1000 is the same card as well). Basically, the Blaster and V1000
cost $199 and the Reactor costs $149. IMO, the Blaster is a
waste (only full game included is IndyCar II). The Reactor
has IndyCar II packaged with it, and the V1000 has IndyCar II,
A-10 (the new version) and Cybergladiators. I'm looking at the
V1000 right now (as I'd probably end up purchasing CG anyway), but
it really gets down to wether or not CG and A-10 are worth $50.
--
+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+
|Do you ever get the feeling that the story's|D.B. Brown |
|too damned real and in the present tense? |da...@bme1.image.uky.edu|
| -Ian Anderson | "..." |
+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+
D. B. Brown
jasonc wrote:
> Probly neither. I just recieved a copy of computer shopper december, and they
> tested 10 cards. It seemed to me the ATI card had the fastest refresh rates
> for both 3D and 2D. Shop around and read alot before you decide. Software
> companies are now developing games for a new universal 3D prossessor type.
> (somthing like that, read Comp Shopper ,Dec.)
Hmm, PC Magazine's website tested 23 cards and rated the Reactor
as the fastest for 3D. (And the ATI card was included in the lineup).
More puzzling information in the 3D card rush... guess I need to
grab a copy of the new Shopper...
sigh, I thought I had a card picked out :)
David Ripton
In article <329256...@bme1.image.uky.edu>,
D. B. Brown <da...@bme1.image.uky.edu> wrote:
>jasonc wrote:
>> Probly neither. I just recieved a copy of computer shopper december, and they
>> tested 10 cards. It seemed to me the ATI card had the fastest refresh rates
>> for both 3D and 2D. Shop around and read alot before you decide. Software
>> companies are now developing games for a new universal 3D prossessor type.
>> (somthing like that, read Comp Shopper ,Dec.)
>
>Hmm, PC Magazine's website tested 23 cards and rated the Reactor
>as the fastest for 3D. (And the ATI card was included in the lineup).
The fastest of what they reviewed. Did they compare it to the
Righteous 3D or Monster 3D?
>More puzzling information in the 3D card rush... guess I need to
>grab a copy of the new Shopper...
Not particularly. The Computer Shopper review only considered 2D/3D
combos, and thus left out the Orchid Righteous 3D. Considering that
it's the best pure 3D card out there now, this was a bad joke.
The only gaming 3D contenders right now are the Voodoo-based and
Verite-based cards. The Voodoo has great performance and is 3D
only, sitting next to your existing 2D card. But it only works
full-screen, and it costs $300 at the moment. The Verite has good
3D performance, has Quake now, and replaces your 2D card, which is
a plus if your existing 2D card sucks or a minus if your existing
2D card is better than the Verite. The Intergraph Reactor
(probably the most-recommended Verite card) is only $150. The
other cards mentioned, like the Mystique and ATI Rage, may be
good in other areas (the Mystique is a great all-around card)
but are missing key features that are vital in a gaming 3D
accelerator.
Do yourselves a favor: ignore the ZD reviews and instead read
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video for a few weeks. You'll get a
lot of noise, but also a lot more signal.
--
David Ripton dri...@netcom.com
Speak softly and carry a big killfile.
Aceze
In article <329256...@bme1.image.uky.edu>,
D. B. Brown <da...@bme1.image.uky.edu> wrote:
>
>Hmm, PC Magazine's website tested 23 cards and rated the Reactor
>as the fastest for 3D. (And the ATI card was included in the lineup).
>
>grab a copy of the new Shopper...
I dunno about this "review"... This is the one on www.pcmag.com right?
More specifically www.pcmag.com/features/3dcards??
It doesnt have any 3dfx chipset cards reviewed _at all_!! No Orchid
Righteous 3d, no Diamond Monster 3d... If I'm not mistaken, the dang
Righteous 3d was out _before_ the Intergraph Reactor! Plus, the Orchid card
they reviewed is _ancient_!! The Fahrenheit 3d one... manohman... Dunno
about the validity of their "reviews" man...
AcEzE
--
Shahir Al Rashid @ Information Commons Help Desk @ UofToronto
==============================================================
Mail: shahir....@utoronto.ca / ac...@interlog.com
Quiddity Awaits: http://www.interlog.com/~aceze
ralph...@aol.com
I bought the Creative which is similar to the Reactor. Dos 2d
performance, for doom etc., was horrible. It made my P133 like a 486
50mhz. Maybe the separate Orchid Righteous is the way to go...
Ralph "Hat Trick" Evans at H2H at 572-3666
Best California Duke/Warcraft/Doom board (Hey! I don't own it: I'm just a subscriber!)
Maker of Fragii, Fragiii, Frag4, Frag5, Ralph, R, Ralph3, Ralph4, Ralph5, Ralph6 (God, when will it end!)---Combo deathmatch wads.
D. B. Brown
David Ripton wrote:
> Not particularly. The Computer Shopper review only considered 2D/3D
> combos, and thus left out the Orchid Righteous 3D. Considering that
> it's the best pure 3D card out there now, this was a bad joke.
Yes, I went out and got CS last night (I don't subscribe... if I
did, then I'd have to ADMIT I'm a geek ;), and was very disappointed
with the cards reviewed - most of the cards reviewed were 2MB
models. Seemed like it went to presses in August, not in
November.
(The latest CGW review on their website has the Reactor and the
Righteous on the same chart, btw, and the Reactor compares decently)
> The only gaming 3D contenders right now are the Voodoo-based and
> Verite-based cards. The Voodoo has great performance and is 3D
> only, sitting next to your existing 2D card. But it only works
> full-screen, and it costs $300 at the moment. The Verite has good
> 3D performance, has Quake now, and replaces your 2D card, which is
> a plus if your existing 2D card sucks or a minus if your existing
> 2D card is better than the Verite. The Intergraph Reactor
> (probably the most-recommended Verite card) is only $150. The
> other cards mentioned, like the Mystique and ATI Rage, may be
> good in other areas (the Mystique is a great all-around card)
> but are missing key features that are vital in a gaming 3D
> accelerator.
For a gamer, right now I'd have to lend my endorsement (whatever
its worth) to the Verite cards. They are graphics cards as well
as accelerators, and are a lot cheaper than (most of) the
competition. They are faster than the non-Voodoo cards at
3D, and have a full feature set, as well. And they aren't
_that_ much slower than the Voodoo cards at 3D (not double the
price worth, imo).
> Do yourselves a favor: ignore the ZD reviews and instead read
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video for a few weeks. You'll get a
> lot of noise, but also a lot more signal.
Sounds like a plan.
David Ripton
In article <19961121140...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<ralph...@aol.com> wrote:
> I bought the Creative which is similar to the Reactor. Dos 2d
>performance, for doom etc., was horrible. It made my P133 like a 486
>50mhz.
This is a known problem with the Verite cards. They suck at DOS
VGA modes. They're a lot better at VESA SVGA modes, and there's
some utility to make some 320x200 games run in 320x240 to run
faster. (It apparently doesn't work for Doom, though. I guess
you can run Doom 95 instead.)
> Maybe the separate Orchid Righteous is the way to go...
Certainly if you already have a topnotch 2D card. I think
eventually we'll all be using 2D/3D combos, but right now none
of them come without either 2D or 3D compromises. Eventually
someone will make one with the 2D performance of the Mystique
and the 3D performance of the Verite, or better, and that
company will make a lot of money.
D. B. Brown
Aceze wrote:
> I dunno about this "review"... This is the one on www.pcmag.com right?
> More specifically www.pcmag.com/features/3dcards??
> It doesnt have any 3dfx chipset cards reviewed _at all_!! No Orchid
> Righteous 3d, no Diamond Monster 3d... If I'm not mistaken, the dang
> Righteous 3d was out _before_ the Intergraph Reactor! Plus, the Orchid card
> they reviewed is _ancient_!! The Fahrenheit 3d one... manohman... Dunno
> about the validity of their "reviews" man...
Also remember that they reviewed _graphics cards_. The Voodoo
chipset isn't availible on a normal card yet, only on an
accelerator.
It's kinda hard to compare a card that only does 3D to a card
that does both, especially when the card that only does 3D needs
a second card to support it, anyway.
Anyway, both Voodoo cards are about 50% faster than the Reactor,
by what I've seen. However, they are both about 100% more
expensive and need a real graphics card to append to, as well.
Ken Williams
Consider the Sierra Screamin'3D (Rendition based). I should first say
that I am Sierra's CEO.
Here's a few things to consider:
1) We did a lot of work to try to have the fastest drivers. I believe
our drivers are at least 25% faster than other cards based on Rendition
hardware
2) We spent the extra money to put the bios into flashram -- the
Rendition is fairly new hardware -- my guess is there will come a day
when you will wish you had the bios in ram
3) Our software bundle is the best out there
4) We have better support than most hardware companies - and a MUCH
better money back guarantee
Thanks - Ken
D. B. Brown wrote:
>
> M. H. Lok wrote:
> > I'm really confused here... Can someone please tell me which 3D card
> > to choose from: the Reactor 3D or the 3D Blaster??? Thanks in advance.
>
> The two cards are identical in hardware, so the only real
> difference is in price and software package. (Also, the Sierra
> V1000 is the same card as well). Basically, the Blaster and V1000
> cost $199 and the Reactor costs $149. IMO, the Blaster is a
> waste (only full game included is IndyCar II). The Reactor
> has IndyCar II packaged with it, and the V1000 has IndyCar II,
> A-10 (the new version) and Cybergladiators. I'm looking at the
> V1000 right now (as I'd probably end up purchasing CG anyway), but
> it really gets down to wether or not CG and A-10 are worth $50.
>
Scott Pedersen
D. B. Brown wrote:
> Anyway, both Voodoo cards are about 50% faster than the Reactor,
> by what I've seen. However, they are both about 100% more
> expensive and need a real graphics card to append to, as well.
I think we shall have to wait till 'z-buffer' utilizing games arive, to
see the "true" (that is 'potential') difference between the cards. The
z-buffer is 'one' of the Voodoo's main supperior features, and according
to Gary T of 3dfx, when a z-buffer is used the difference blows out to
way beyond 50% or even 100%; and (unfortunately for them) none of the
present direct 3d titles use this and hence show the difference in a
(fair?) comparative way. One of the demos (the wiz thing) that they
converted to direct 3d apparently shows the Voodoo's performance at 3-4
times that of the Verite when this, and other, features are enabled....
(and granted the technical demo is made by 3dfx so you'll have to decide
yourself how much validity you place on it..... but personally i find
it hard to imagine they could produce a direct 3d demo that would run
accross multiple platforms and place a 300-400% hit or more on other
chipsets; unless it was on a largley hardware and features basis....
Scott Pedersen
Bob Luthardt
With the help of an infinite number of monkeys, Ken Williams
<ke...@seanet.com> wrote:
-->"Consider the Sierra Screamin'3D (Rendition based). I should first say
-->"that I am Sierra's CEO.
-->"
-->"Here's a few things to consider:
-->"
-->"1) We did a lot of work to try to have the fastest drivers. I believe
-->"our drivers are at least 25% faster than other cards based on Rendition
-->"hardware
-->"2) We spent the extra money to put the bios into flashram -- the
-->"Rendition is fairly new hardware -- my guess is there will come a day
-->"when you will wish you had the bios in ram
-->"3) Our software bundle is the best out there
-->"4) We have better support than most hardware companies - and a MUCH
-->"better money back guarantee
-->"
-->"Thanks - Ken
But what about support for products _other_ than Sierra? Will outside
developers reach a roadblock when dealing with Sierra in development
of 3D titles?
-->"
-->"
-->"D. B. Brown wrote:
-->">
-->"> M. H. Lok wrote:
-->"> > I'm really confused here... Can someone please tell me which 3D card
-->"> > to choose from: the Reactor 3D or the 3D Blaster??? Thanks in advance.
-->">
-->"> The two cards are identical in hardware, so the only real
-->"> difference is in price and software package. (Also, the Sierra
-->"> V1000 is the same card as well). Basically, the Blaster and V1000
-->"> cost $199 and the Reactor costs $149. IMO, the Blaster is a
-->"> waste (only full game included is IndyCar II). The Reactor
-->"> has IndyCar II packaged with it, and the V1000 has IndyCar II,
-->"> A-10 (the new version) and Cybergladiators. I'm looking at the
-->"> V1000 right now (as I'd probably end up purchasing CG anyway), but
-->"> it really gets down to wether or not CG and A-10 are worth $50.
-->">
-->"> --
-->"> +=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+
-->"> |Do you ever get the feeling that the story's|D.B. Brown |
-->"> |too damned real and in the present tense? |da...@bme1.image.uky.edu|
-->"> | -Ian Anderson | "..." |
-->"> +=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+
Todd Lehrfeld
1- isn't your card more expensive than Integraph's Rendition card? ($150)
2- Why didn't you use the Voodoo chipset? It blows Verite away in 3D.
Ken Williams
Pricing varies from retailer to retailer. Our price is $199 from us
(800-757-7707) but the card can probably be found cheaper at different
retailers. The $150 price on Intergraph is a great price -- but they
bundle less software than us, don't have our tech support, don't have
our software bundle, and don't have our device drivers (which I believe
are materially faster). All that said, the Rendition is a hot card - and
I would have no problem recommending an Intergraph.
We didn't use the Voodoo chip set because the card would have had to
price the card $75 higher .. and the card wouldn't have accelerated 2D
games, which are still a big portion of the market. Also, in our trials,
the Voodoo was only faster under certain circumstances. In actual games
it would run slower. In particular, when mixing 2D and 3D, such as a 2D
cockpit for a flight sim, where there is the problem of 2D and lots of
computation, the Voodoo was way behind the Rendition.
-Ken
ttammi
dri...@netcom.com (David Ripton) wrote:
>>Hmm, PC Magazine's website tested 23 cards and rated the Reactor
>>as the fastest for 3D. (And the ATI card was included in the lineup).
>The fastest of what they reviewed. Did they compare it to the
>Righteous 3D or Monster 3D?
>...
>Do yourselves a favor: ignore the ZD reviews and instead read
>comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video for a few weeks. You'll get a
>lot of noise, but also a lot more signal.
Actually, I found ZDNet review of 3D cards (somewhere under
www.zdnet.com/gaming/) very informative. They included Monster 3D and
Righteous 3D into their review, and I recall they said something like
"If you want the very best performance, get a Mystique accompanied by a
Orchid Righteous3D". The information on the review seemed pretty
accurate technically.
Terrence Yee
jasonc wrote:
>
> M. H. Lok wrote:
> >
>
> tested 10 cards. It seemed to me the ATI card had the fastest refresh rates
> for both 3D and 2D. Shop around and read alot before you decide. Software
> companies are now developing games for a new universal 3D prossessor type.
> (somthing like that, read Comp Shopper ,Dec.)
This is the wrong newsgroup but refresh does not equal 3d processing
power. Check out comp.sys.ibm.hardware.video for real info. Btw, the
Reactor is a good bargin at $150 and will outperform the Rage chipset by
a few orders of magnitude. Even the RageII pales in comparison.
Ty
D. B. Brown
Bob Luthardt wrote:
> But what about support for products _other_ than Sierra? Will outside
> developers reach a roadblock when dealing with Sierra in development
> of 3D titles?
Any card optimised to run on the 3D Blaster or Reactor will be
optimised to run on the Screamin'3D. All three cards use the
Rendition Verite chipset, and anything that is 'Rendition Ready'
(As the three cardmakers are calling it) will run with all the
spiffy-keen bells and whistles of any of the three cards. IMO,
this is a big plus for the cards - they currently have the most
support of any of the chipsets out there.
--
+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+
|Do you ever get the feeling that the story's|D.B. Brown |
|too damned real and in the present tense? |da...@bme1.image.uky.edu|
| -Ian Anderson | "..." |
+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+
D. B. Brown
Ken Williams wrote:
> I would have no problem recommending an Intergraph.
Well, I have one question concerning the difference between the
Reactor and the Screamin'3D...
In CGW's review on their web site, they ran all of the Verite cards
in various tests, and they showed mostly uniform results, with two
noticable exceptions... The first that the S3D ran faster than the
other two in Windows performance, and the other that the S3D ran
slower than the other two Verite based cards in Microsoft's
Hellbender.
One test in one game would normally not mean too much, but in this
case, Hellbender was the only Win95 native game run through the
tests, and the S3D ran the slowest of the Verite pack (at least,
according to CGW's testing). The big thing is, most games that
the owners of S3D cards will be playing will be Win95 native with
Direct3D support (well, maybe not most, but most of those that
do use 3D acceleration).
Can you please offer some responce as to this seeming drop in
performance?
> -Ken
And by the way, thanks for the quick responces and information.
Ken Williams
We're using the Canopus drivers. The CGW review was done with a VERY
preliminary set of our drivers. I haven't personally compared to
Intergraph, but am told we are significantly faster (>20%).
-Ken
Joel Hulsey
>-Ken
I can verify that! With my Screamin' 3D, DOS games run faster than
with my old 2D card (Stealth 64 w/2 megs VRAM). I mean significantly
faster in some respects! I had no idea how much a video card can
improve a gaming situation.
Well done Sierra! The new ICR2 is worth the price alone (although the
new Quake doesn't hurt much either)!
Joel Hulsey
Christopher Ng
On Fri, 22 Nov 1996 17:29:05 -0800, Ken Williams <ke...@seanet.com>
wrote:
>Pricing varies from retailer to retailer. Our price is $199 from us
>(800-757-7707) but the card can probably be found cheaper at different
>retailers. The $150 price on Intergraph is a great price -- but they
>bundle less software than us, don't have our tech support, don't have
>our software bundle, and don't have our device drivers (which I believe
>are materially faster). All that said, the Rendition is a hot card - and
>I would have no problem recommending an Intergraph.
>
>We didn't use the Voodoo chip set because the card would have had to
>price the card $75 higher .. and the card wouldn't have accelerated 2D
>games, which are still a big portion of the market. Also, in our trials,
>the Voodoo was only faster under certain circumstances. In actual games
>it would run slower. In particular, when mixing 2D and 3D, such as a 2D
>cockpit for a flight sim, where there is the problem of 2D and lots of
>computation, the Voodoo was way behind the Rendition.
>
>-Ken
>
Would the Voodoo RUSH be slower in these situations (the last couple
you mentioned) as well? Or is it too early to tell?
=============================
Christopher 'Chairman' Ng
<C...@ecr.mu.oz.au>
<K...@alpha1.cc.monash.edu.au>
=============================
Eric T. Busch
I for one am damn glad Intergraph doesn't have Sierra's tech support.
Intergraph has gone out of their way to help Reactor owners. You make
it seem as though calling Sierra and waiting on hold for long amounts
of time only to talk to someone who has no clue how to help you is a
good thing (I've had bad experiences with Sierra in the past). I only
wish more companies would take notice of Intergraph's outstanding
service and try to implement a similar system. Still, your comments in
this newsgroup are an encouraging sign.
--
Eric Busch <ebu...@emory.edu>
Emory University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
Nascar Setups Page: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~ebusch/
David Ripton
In article <32a8580f...@newsserver.cc.monash.edu.au>,
Christopher Ng <c...@ecr.mu.oz.au> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Nov 1996 17:29:05 -0800, Ken Williams <ke...@seanet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Pricing varies from retailer to retailer. Our price is $199 from us
>>(800-757-7707) but the card can probably be found cheaper at different
>>retailers. The $150 price on Intergraph is a great price -- but they
>>bundle less software than us, don't have our tech support, don't have
>>our software bundle, and don't have our device drivers (which I believe
>>are materially faster). All that said, the Rendition is a hot card - and
>>I would have no problem recommending an Intergraph.
>>
>>price the card $75 higher .. and the card wouldn't have accelerated 2D
>>games, which are still a big portion of the market. Also, in our trials,
>>the Voodoo was only faster under certain circumstances. In actual games
>>it would run slower. In particular, when mixing 2D and 3D, such as a 2D
>>cockpit for a flight sim, where there is the problem of 2D and lots of
>>computation, the Voodoo was way behind the Rendition.
>Would the Voodoo RUSH be slower in these situations (the last couple
>you mentioned) as well? Or is it too early to tell?
You CAN'T mix GDI 2D with 3D on a current Voodoo, period. This
makes one Direct3D game that I know of, Monday Night Football,
incompatible with Voodoo cards.
If you draw the cockpit of a flight simulator with 3D polygons, the
Voodoo's faster than the Verite as usual. If you draw it with 2D GDI
calls, the Voodoo won't work with the game. Game companies know this,
and as long as the Voodoo is a top-selling 3D card, they'll program
their Direct3D games to stay compatible with it. I guess what the
Sierra guy is saying is that if you tweak versions of the same game
so that the Verite version draws the cockpit with efficient 2D calls
while the Voodoo version draws it with 3D, the Verite will be faster.
While this makes perfect sense, it's a pretty bogus reason to pick a
Verite card over a Voodoo card. Most games aren't like this. A game
like Hellbender that uses a big cockpit to dramatically reduce the 3D
part of the screen so that it can remain playable on lame cards (no,
I'm not calling the Verite cards lame) is an aberration, not the kind
of thing you base your purchase around.
In actual games that work on both, the Voodoo is faster.
Remember, he's trying to sell his Sierra card. You have to take
everything he says in that light.
(I don't have anything against the Verite. It's the second-best
3D chipset out there, and you can get it packaged along with
pretty good 2D for $150. A total bargain. But anyone who tells
you that it outperforms the Voodoo is wrong.)