RAGE 128... how?
Alex Fuller
shipped a card to us yet? The damn thing's been running with only minor
problems in the B/W G3s for months, and has been shipping on pee-cee for
ages.
What can the problem be that will make it 6 months later than late? And
who do they think is going to buy a card that is so out of date? 6 months
in the graphics cards industry is a generation... and the RAGE hasn't been
the fastest for a long time.
And now we hear that the nVidia TNTs are seriously Mac-incompatible (no
RGB 1555, and apparently even trickier to fix than the V2/3), that the
Formac ProFormance III is slow as pigshit... it makes a mockery of Apple's
target to make the Mac a top gaming platform. Let's hope the next 3dfx
card is out soon and fully Mac-compatible... perhaps in a few months we'll
be all smiles again....
-A-
DC
posted in here last week something cryptic about some weird situation between
ATI and Apple. That we didn't know the whole story?
I think I may know why. I think these delays (Orion, 128 VR, Nexus 128) *may*
be because Apple is not letting them. Seriously. I may be going out on a limb
here, but maybe it's possible that Apple wants its new G3s to be *THE* gaming
Macintosh. Right now, there isn't a better card overall, AFAIK. Hopefully the
Proformance 3 card will kick its ass. But other than using a MC 12 MB Voodoo2
(which doesn't support OpenGL as well as the ATI card, I think), we don't
have much choices in terms of stellar graphics cards. Maybe, just maybe,
Apple is introducing new systems in September with the Rage 128 Pro, just
when the 128 VR and NExus are slated to ship. Hmmm.......
I know this sounds like a conspiracy, but it could be the case. We aren't
getting any sort of explanations from ATI on the delays. They've been WAY too
quiet about it. And I think Apple has some sort of stupid hold on them.
What do you guys think? I wish the dude from ATI would provide SOME feedback
on this issue.....
-DC
aka JUGULATOR!!!
Jamal Bernhard
> ....But other than using a MC 12 MB Voodoo2
> (which doesn't support OpenGL as well as the ATI card, I think), we don't
> have much choices in terms of stellar graphics cards.
Um, are you forgetting all the other voodoo2 cards on the market? ATI
(and Apple) have to know that many of us have cancelled our ATI orders
and gone out and bought PC voodoo2's.
--
Jamal (I_M_Gibbed)
please delete ".REMOVE.THIS.INVALID" for reply via email (thanks!)
http://home.pacbell.net/jamalb
DC
dime on a PC card until I hear about the results.
-DC
Mitch Crane
<webm...@NOSPAMjudas-priest.com> wrote:
> Well, bought them but have no drivers (yet). Personally, I am not spending a
> dime on a PC card until I hear about the results.
> -DC
If you mean official drivers downloaded from 3Dfx, then, no, we don't
have them. If you mean drivers written by 3Dfx that work very damn
well, albeit without SLI support, then many of us have them and are
happily playing games like Unreal and Q3T on our PC Voodoo2 cards.
--
ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra
Jamal Bernhard
> Well, bought them but have no drivers (yet). Personally, I am not spending a
> dime on a PC card until I hear about the results.
> -DC
Well, let me know. I will email you the drivers that work great with my
PC voodoo2. Same timedemo results as the MC card.
DC
-DC
Mitch Crane
card. The MC driver works fine.
In article <3788AA65...@NOSPAMjudas-priest.com>, DC
<webm...@NOSPAMjudas-priest.com> wrote:
--
ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra
DC
card? No problems?
-DC
Matthew Vaughan
non-cracked drivers only work on MC's cards.
Earlier there were some non-MC reference drivers leaked which did have
some problems.
In article <37890965...@NOSPAMjudas-priest.com>,
webm...@NOSPAMjudas-priest.com wrote:
> So, just to be clear, you can use the MC drivers with any PC Voodoo2 reference
> card? No problems?
>
> Mitch Crane wrote:
>
> > No. The problems were with a driver which was never realeased for any
> > card. The MC driver works fine.
> >
> > In article <3788AA65...@NOSPAMjudas-priest.com>, DC
> > <webm...@NOSPAMjudas-priest.com> wrote:
> >
> > > No shit? I thought there were a lot of problems with those drivers, no?
> > >
> > >
> > > Jamal Bernhard wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, let me know. I will email you the drivers that work great with my
> > > > PC voodoo2. Same timedemo results as the MC card.
....................................................
MATTHEW VAUGHAN
matthewv at best dot com (damn spammers...)
http://www.best.com/~matthewv/
....................................................
Jamal Bernhard
> So, just to be clear, you can use the MC drivers with any PC Voodoo2 reference
> card? No problems?
Once you patch it with the patching program, yes. You're thinking of
the "Halloween Driver", which was a hacked driver that didn't work very
well. But yes, the MC-patched driver works great.
DC
tomorrow!
-DC
aka JUGULATOR!!!
Morten Reippuert Knudsen
> that the
> Formac ProFormance III is slow as pigshit
The german magazine MacUP tested a beta version of Proformance 3 against
banshe and Rage 128 - Proformance was 50-100% faster in both in Rave,
Open Gl, Quicktime and 2D - Plus it now seems that Proformance 3 will
hit the shelves before ATI's Rage 128 based cards and formac has prmised
that the card will be able to do Glide as well...
--
venlig hilsen Morten Reippuert Knudsen
motto: Rigtige mænd tager ikke backup!
Lolo
than the ATI 128.
But, in all the tests and benchmarks in the Pc magazines, this card is said
to be the slowest in games. During Quake 2 PC benchmarks it only gets about
15 fps at 800*600 !!!
Is the Mac version faster ?????
Lolo
Matthew Vaughan
<hig...@multimania.com> wrote:
Note that that benchmark is in crusher (was that from sharkeyextreme?).
Are Macs with Rage 128 cards getting way better 800x600 crusher scores
than that? But yeah, compared to TNT2, G400, or Voodoo 3, the Permedia 3
isn't much of a gaming card it appears (but then neither is the Rage 128).
Heh, that's still better than the *9fps* I got in crusher with my Mac
(PowerCenter w/300MHz G3 upgrade, 128MB RAM, Voodoo 2)
DC
Daniel Wijk
faster when that happens, I hope.
/Daniel Wijk
----------
Matthew Vaughan
resolution. Usually that indicated fill-rate limits which they can't do
much about, but perhaps there's something else going on in this case.
In article <Z0ni3.187$Gc6.17...@newsb.telia.net>, "Daniel Wijk"
<d...@telia.com> wrote:
> Thats because they havn´t optimized the drivers yet, it should be much
> faster when that happens, I hope.
>
> In article <7mcad9$dik$1...@minus.oleane.net>, "Lolo" <hig...@multimania.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Everybody here is talking about the Permedia 3 and some said it's faster
> > than the ATI 128.
> >
> > But, in all the tests and benchmarks in the Pc magazines, this card is said
> > to be the slowest in games. During Quake 2 PC benchmarks it only gets about
> > 15 fps at 800*600 !!!
> >
> > Is the Mac version faster ?????
....................................................
Eddie Aftandilian
card than as a gaming card; thus, it's been optimized for different tasks.
I seriously doubt it will be any faster on the Mac, as there's not really
much the manufacturer can do.
For reference, on a P3-450 PC running Quake 2 (demo1.dm2) at 1024x768x16,
the Rage 128 gets 43 fps while a Permedia 3 gets 35 fps. So it's not THAT
much slower than the Rage 128; perhaps it's getting poor reviews on the PC
side because it doesn't stack up well against other PC video cards (TNT2
gets ~65 fps in the previously mentioned benchmark, for example).
Eddie
Lolo <hig...@multimania.com> wrote in message
news:7mcad9$dik$1...@minus.oleane.net...
> Everybody here is talking about the Permedia 3 and some said it's faster
> than the ATI 128.
>
> But, in all the tests and benchmarks in the Pc magazines, this card is
said
> to be the slowest in games. During Quake 2 PC benchmarks it only gets
about
> 15 fps at 800*600 !!!
>
> Is the Mac version faster ?????
>
> Lolo
Morten Reippuert Knudsen
> For reference, on a P3-450 PC running Quake 2 (demo1.dm2) at 1024x768x16,
> the Rage 128 gets 43 fps while a Permedia 3 gets 35 fps. So it's not THAT
> much slower than the Rage 128; perhaps it's getting poor reviews on the PC
> side because it doesn't stack up well against other PC video cards (TNT2
> gets ~65 fps in the previously mentioned benchmark, for example).
This is MacUP's 3D results (Rave/Glide). All test's are made on the same
G3/400 BW. All cards has 16MB of RAM. The ATI and Formac cards where
tested in the "fast" PCI slot.
Card: ATI Rage 128 Formac Proformance 3 VillageTronic MP 850
(BW model) (prototype) (Voodoo Banchee)
Quake: 49.6/- 79.5/- -/37.4
Unreal: 33.4/- 54.08/- -/31
It seems that Formac have done a great job with the drivers:-)
Nathaniel Tagg
:>DC <webm...@NOSPAMjudas-priest.com> wrote:
:>> ....But other than using a MC 12 MB Voodoo2
:>> (which doesn't support OpenGL as well as the ATI card, I think), we don't
:>> have much choices in terms of stellar graphics cards.
:>Um, are you forgetting all the other voodoo2 cards on the market? ATI
:>(and Apple) have to know that many of us have cancelled our ATI orders
:>and gone out and bought PC voodoo2's.
Just because there's a conspiracy doesn't mean it's a SMART
conspiracy.
--N
--
Nathaniel Tagg Physics grad student University of Guelph
"The chances of a neutrino actually hitting something as it
travels through all this howling emptiness are roughly comparable to that
of dropping a ball bearing at random from a cruising 747 and hitting,
say, an egg sandwich." -- Douglas Adams, _Mostly_Harmless_
Lorenzo Mazzucco
> I think the Permedia 3 is being positioned as more of a high-end 3d modeling
> card than as a gaming card; thus, it's been optimized for different tasks.
> I seriously doubt it will be any faster on the Mac, as there's not really
> much the manufacturer can do.
Yes, it's a very good 3D modeling card. I've got a Permedia 2 in my PC and
I'm very glad of this card.
> For reference, on a P3-450 PC running Quake 2 (demo1.dm2) at 1024x768x16,
> the Rage 128 gets 43 fps while a Permedia 3 gets 35 fps. So it's not THAT
> much slower than the Rage 128; perhaps it's getting poor reviews on the PC
> side because it doesn't stack up well against other PC video cards (TNT2
> gets ~65 fps in the previously mentioned benchmark, for example).
On the PC, the Permedia 3 has got really bad benchmarks and reviews :(
Lolo
Bruno Blondeau
Maybe because it is unable to reach high fps peaks.
But if it is able to sustain a good fps even during complex screens, it
should be ok.
Anyway, on the Mac, the quality of the driver will be everything.
--
Bruno Blondeau
email : blondea...@wanadoo.fr
You don't have to swim faster than the shark,
just faster than the guy next to you.
Luigi Mattera
Blondeau <blondea...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Maybe because it is unable to reach high fps peaks.
> But if it is able to sustain a good fps even during complex screens, it
> should be ok.
This sounds way too much like wishful thinking.
Every graphics accelerator has always been worse on a Mac than on a
PC.
> Anyway, on the Mac, the quality of the driver will be everything.
As if it didn't matter on the PC side..?
Bruno Blondeau
> In article <1dv32ip.1ci...@tntdij10-235.abo.wanadoo.fr>, Bruno
> Blondeau <blondea...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > Maybe because it is unable to reach high fps peaks.
> > But if it is able to sustain a good fps even during complex screens, it
> > should be ok.
>
> This sounds way too much like wishful thinking.
>
> Every graphics accelerator has always been worse on a Mac than on a
> PC.
Yes. sigh.
> > Anyway, on the Mac, the quality of the driver will be everything.
>
> As if it didn't matter on the PC side..?
Of course it does.
But as you said, they are always better.
Matthew Vaughan
blondea...@wanadoo.fr (Bruno Blondeau) wrote:
> Lorenzo Mazzucco <lec...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
>
> > On the PC, the Permedia 3 has got really bad benchmarks and reviews :(
>
> Maybe because it is unable to reach high fps peaks.
> But if it is able to sustain a good fps even during complex screens, it
> should be ok.
Unfortunately, I think it tanked when running the crusher demos, so I
wouldn't count on it doing complex scenes any better. :(