TNT with Direct3D faster than Voodoo2 with Glide
Reggie
to a D3D only board....it's not only a speed issue, it's
compatibility....that was my reason for going V2 when I upgraded from
PowerVR...my little 200mmx on Quake II jumped from about 11 to 12 FPS to 27
and that's benchmarked with the sound on.....Quake II and Unreal are the
slowest games I've got and I'm getting nearly 30FPS on both of them.
Immediate question though.....with the apparent vapor ware status of the
PVRSG (which I was waiting for for the longest time) that pretty much leaves
the TNT, Savage3D, and Banshe fighting it out around christmas
time.....what's the price point for the TNT, if it can deliver good
performance for under 200$ it'll really take off as the V2 good though it is
cost a pretty penny.
Reg.
Mike Storr wrote in message <35e55fd5...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
>
>From http://www.fastgraphics.com/rev-v550.html :
>
>The king is dead... Long live the king !!!
>Finally, someone has been able to beat the half year old Voodoo
>II chipset from 3Dfx. The Riva TNT chipset doesn't just offer
>better image quality than the Voodoo II chipset, it also
>outperforms Voodoo II on all benchmarks but the Quake II test...
>This is probably since the OpenGL driver needs some more
>tweaking. In games like Turok we see that the Riva TNT chipset
>outperforms a single Voodoo II who's running that same game in
>Glide...
>
>
>
Worker Working
>
> I'll keep my V2. There's just far too much glide software for me to switch
> to a D3D only board....it's not only a speed issue, it's
> compatibility....that was my reason for going V2 when I upgraded from
> PowerVR...my little 200mmx on Quake II jumped from about 11 to 12 FPS to 27
> and that's benchmarked with the sound on.....Quake II and Unreal are the
> slowest games I've got and I'm getting nearly 30FPS on both of them.
> Immediate question though.....with the apparent vapor ware status of the
> PVRSG (which I was waiting for for the longest time) that pretty much leaves
> the TNT, Savage3D, and Banshe fighting it out around christmas
> time.....what's the price point for the TNT, if it can deliver good
> performance for under 200$ it'll really take off as the V2 good though it is
> cost a pretty penny.
>
Yeah, it's pretty cheap. They're talking about US$130 for the 8MB
version. I'm buying a new system in a few weeks and will probably go
with a Matrox G200 card and see if I can live without Glide.
I'm hoping the TNT will be available by then but not getting my hopes
up.
Still it IS remarkable that the competition is just catching up after
all this time. I hope we're not peaking for this technology. It will
be interesting to see what (if anything) 3DFX has up it's sleeve.
Ace
>version. I'm buying a new system in a few weeks and will probably go
>with a Matrox G200 card and see if I can live without Glide.
>
>I'm hoping the TNT will be available by then but not getting my hopes
>up.
>
>Still it IS remarkable that the competition is just catching up after
>all this time. I hope we're not peaking for this technology. It will
>be interesting to see what (if anything) 3DFX has up it's sleeve.
You should see TNT boards with 16Mb under $200. G200 boards with 8MB are
right around $110-125 currently. S3 Savage boards should also be in that
price range. The new Banshee boards will be around $150 for a 16MB model.
This is a very competitive market and any of these boards would provide a
decent solution. And don't forget the Voodoo2. At $150 for a 12Mb board,
it's still a VERY effective solution for someone who already has a 2D board.
DVS Lurker
>>
>>The king is dead... Long live the king !!!
>>Finally, someone has been able to beat the half year old Voodoo
>>II chipset from 3Dfx. The Riva TNT chipset doesn't just offer
>>better image quality than the Voodoo II chipset, it also
>>outperforms Voodoo II on all benchmarks but the Quake II test...
>>This is probably since the OpenGL driver needs some more
>>tweaking. In games like Turok we see that the Riva TNT chipset
>>outperforms a single Voodoo II who's running that same game in
>>Glide...
But, it doesn't RUN GLIDE games!!!!! Case Closed! Have you seen the quality
in GLIDE games!? I got MK4 yesterday. I have a sucking D3D only card; ever
heard of Creative Graphic Blaster 3D ? ( by the way, how is this card anyway
? ) Ok, So, the I got D3D working in Mk4. it was good. But when I saw my
next door neighbour running the game in GLIDE. I was disappointed, and that
is where I said that its about time Direct3D should SUCK IT!
Peter Hill
>in GLIDE games!? I got MK4 yesterday. I have a sucking D3D only card; ever
>heard of Creative Graphic Blaster 3D ? ( by the way, how is this card
anyway
>? ) Ok, So, the I got D3D working in Mk4. it was good. But when I saw my
>next door neighbour running the game in GLIDE. I was disappointed, and that
>is where I said that its about time Direct3D should SUCK IT!
Is it really safe to assume the quality of a "sucking D3D only card" will be
equal to that of TNT? Glide produces good results with Voodoo because it's
a proprietary system, very narrowly designed to function well with 3Dfx
technology. TNT now represents the high end of cards designed for Direct3D;
any game designed properly for that standard should run well with TNT.
Joel Mack
: From http://www.fastgraphics.com/rev-v550.html :
: The king is dead... Long live the king !!!
: Finally, someone has been able to beat the half year old Voodoo
: II chipset from 3Dfx. The Riva TNT chipset doesn't just offer
: better image quality than the Voodoo II chipset, it also
: outperforms Voodoo II on all benchmarks but the Quake II test...
: This is probably since the OpenGL driver needs some more
: tweaking. In games like Turok we see that the Riva TNT chipset
: outperforms a single Voodoo II who's running that same game in
: Glide...
Well, it's good to see nVidia is now only 6 months behind 3Dfx, instead of
a year...
van...@my-dejanews.com
"DVS Lurker" <asad....@usa.net> wrote:
> But, it doesn't RUN GLIDE games!!!!! Case Closed! Have you seen the quality
> in GLIDE games!? I got MK4 yesterday. I have a sucking D3D only card; ever
> heard of Creative Graphic Blaster 3D ? ( by the way, how is this card anyway
> ? ) Ok, So, the I got D3D working in Mk4. it was good. But when I saw my
> next door neighbour running the game in GLIDE. I was disappointed, and that
> is where I said that its about time Direct3D should SUCK IT!
CL Graphics Blaster 3D is a Permedia 2 board, I think. I saw it running
"Red Line Racer" and right next to it the same game on a Voodoo 2. Of course
it looked better than in the GB. But that's not the rule. Look at the Matrox
G200, for instance: even though it does not support OpenGL by now, the image
quality of Quake II running on it is FAR superior to the one of a Voodoo 2.
And it's running Q2 through a Direct3D wrapper so OpenGL works!!! Being a
GLIDE game does not necessarily mean it will look much better, or better at
all, than the same game with Direct3D. The good thing about TNT is that it's
a single board 2D/3D solution - quite good for someone building a new system,
is somewhat faster than a single Voodoo 2, and seems to have much improved
graphics quality, even though it does not support GLIDE.
I don't have any 3D games by the moment, and eve if I did, it would suck in
my P133. But I'm planning to buy a new system, and do not want to spend a
huge amount of money, so I'll stick with the TNT, or any other 2D/3D combo
that gives me good performance/price relation.
BTW, for you saying that Voodoo 2 is cheap now, here in Brazil the cheapest
I found was a Creative Labs 3D Blaster 8 Mb for - WOW - R$ 458 (more than US$
400). :-)
Marcelo.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
nospam Sean Hoffman
On Thu, 27 Aug 1998 08:59:57 -0700, Worker Working <sta...@thesun.com> wrote:
>Reggie wrote:
>>
>> I'll keep my V2. There's just far too much glide software for me to switch
>> to a D3D only board....it's not only a speed issue, it's
>> compatibility....that was my reason for going V2 when I upgraded from
>> PowerVR...my little 200mmx on Quake II jumped from about 11 to 12 FPS to 27
>> and that's benchmarked with the sound on.....Quake II and Unreal are the
>> slowest games I've got and I'm getting nearly 30FPS on both of them.
>> Immediate question though.....with the apparent vapor ware status of the
>> PVRSG (which I was waiting for for the longest time) that pretty much leaves
>> the TNT, Savage3D, and Banshe fighting it out around christmas
>> time.....what's the price point for the TNT, if it can deliver good
>> performance for under 200$ it'll really take off as the V2 good though it is
>> cost a pretty penny.
>>
>
Jeff Atwood
that was his point. When a card using a general API outperforms a card using
its own native API, you can generally assume that card is faster!
Jeff
Skanky wrote in message ...
>In article <33kF1.691$yE.18...@newsread.com>, "Peter Hill"
><ph...@sunlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Is it really safe to assume the quality of a "sucking D3D only card" will
be
>> equal to that of TNT? Glide produces good results with Voodoo because
it's
>> a proprietary system, very narrowly designed to function well with 3Dfx
>> technology. TNT now represents the high end of cards designed for
Direct3D;
>> any game designed properly for that standard should run well with TNT.
>
>And will, according to your own logic, never appear nor perform as well a
>a game written for Glide.
Worker Working
>
> In article <35e5e...@news.mti.net>, "Jeff Atwood"
> <jat...@nospammy.a.crl.com.nospammy> wrote:
>
> > Turok in GLIDE on a Voodoo2 is slower than Turok in D3D on a TNT.. I think
> > that was his point. When a card using a general API outperforms a card using
> > its own native API, you can generally assume that card is faster!
> >
> > Jeff
> >
>
> features than D3D. Try some simple logic sometime.
Wow, good point. If an API supports colored lighting and such it will
run less FPS....
Jeff Atwood
pixel-for-pixel identical. In fact I have a bunch of screenshots of the RIVA
128 (D3D) and the 3dfx (GLIDE) running Turok in the same area that you can
compare. If you are interested, e-mail me.
You guys forget the way these games are written: there is a SINGLE graphics
engine that calls through to the graphics API. Unless they build two
different EXEs, the graphics calls are pretty much identical, the only thing
different is which API they call down to.
For example:
Begin RenderCar()
if 3dfx_glide then
(call some glide function)
else
(call equivalent D3D function)
End
This is the most efficient way to program a 3D game anyway. You don't want
to maintain two radically different codebases, you just build your graphics
engine and call down using the IF-ELSE to the appropriate rendering API
(d3D, opengl, GLIDE, etc).
That is why GLIDE games typically don't look much different than their D3D
equivalents, they are just somewhat faster.
Jeff
Worker Working wrote in message <35E5EF...@thesun.com>...
Royce Liao
: But, it doesn't RUN GLIDE games!!!!! Case Closed! Have you seen the quality
: heard of Creative Graphic Blaster 3D ? ( by the way, how is this card anyway
The GB3D (Cirrus Laguna GD-5464) ranks a little bit ahead of the Matrox
Mystique...and I don't mean the G200. heheh
That means your card is in the same league as the Trident 3D-975, Matrox
Mystique 170/220, and S3/Trio3D.
: ? ) Ok, So, the I got D3D working in Mk4. it was good. But when I saw my
cla...@yahoo.com
"Peter Hill" <ph...@sunlink.net> wrote:
> >But, it doesn't RUN GLIDE games!!!!! Case Closed! Have you seen the quality
> >in GLIDE games!? I got MK4 yesterday. I have a sucking D3D only card; ever
> >heard of Creative Graphic Blaster 3D ? ( by the way, how is this card
> anyway
> >next door neighbour running the game in GLIDE. I was disappointed, and that
> >is where I said that its about time Direct3D should SUCK IT!
>
> equal to that of TNT? Glide produces good results with Voodoo because it's
> a proprietary system, very narrowly designed to function well with 3Dfx
> technology. TNT now represents the high end of cards designed for Direct3D;
> any game designed properly for that standard should run well with TNT.
>
The only reason that anybody should get a voodoo2 board is if they have a
really really nice 2d board that they just cant do without and just want a 3d
upgrade to play games with. With a 3dfx board you have access to all games
D3D,GL,Glide. The TNT seems to be a really good chipset and runs everything
but glide...but the kicker for me is that it runs 3d in a window so that I
can accelerate my 3d applications in OpenGL.
husker15
until something can beat the V2 in glide apps esp Quake 2,
there is no reason to stray from the best gaming chip ever made.
Paul Campbell
> From http://www.fastgraphics.com/rev-v550.html :
>
> The king is dead... Long live the king !!!
> Finally, someone has been able to beat the half year old Voodoo
> II chipset from 3Dfx. The Riva TNT chipset doesn't just offer
> better image quality than the Voodoo II chipset, it also
> outperforms Voodoo II on all benchmarks but the Quake II test...
> This is probably since the OpenGL driver needs some more
> tweaking. In games like Turok we see that the Riva TNT chipset
> outperforms a single Voodoo II who's running that same game in
> Glide...
I think its obvious that the TNT is technically better *hardware*
but you also have to ask yourself who you would trust more to produce
and stable efficient drivers (for whatever API) in a timely manner.
Nvidia ?, Board manufacturer "x" or "y" ?, or 3dfx.
Paul C.
Christian Klassen
Joel Mack wrote...
>
>Well, it's good to see nVidia is now only 6 months behind 3Dfx, instead of
>a year...
What do you mean, behind ? Ever cared to look, how much
silicon 3dfx is sticking on their 3d add-on boards compared
to 2d/3d single chip solutions?
Christian
Worker Working
One-chip solutions are done for cost reasons. While they may be using
advanced technology to create everything on one chip, the only benefit
to that is cheaper fabrication and board design.
Multi-chip designs allow for better cooling and easier
trouble-shooting. I'm not saying that multi-chip boards are any kind of
advance either, but the only reason to go to a single-chip design is to
be able to manufacture at a lower price.
They're cheap, not technological breakthroughs...
Bottom line, once again, is that the competition is JUST NOW reaching
where 3DFX was half a year ago.
Don't get me wrong, I'll probably be buying a TNT in my new machine but
I also find it a bit odd that after all this time nobody seems to be
jumping to the next level, just pushing the boundaries an incremental
amount...
Murch
(snip).
>
>Hell if the amount of silicon is what matters I know some women that
>you can plug into and get 5000 fps. ;-)
>>
>> Christian
LOL
Jeff Atwood
Specialized hardware (in this case, 3D-only hardware) does not have the same
constraints as generalized hardware.
Incidentally, that's why banshee is slower and lacks features compared to
the competition, and (we hope) not because 3dfx has mediocre engineers.
Jeff
BP wrote in message <35e6bef7...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On 28 Aug 1998 12:33:54 GMT, ChKl...@t-online.de (Christian Klassen)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Joel Mack wrote...
>>
>>>
>>>Well, it's good to see nVidia is now only 6 months behind 3Dfx, instead
of
>>>a year...
>>
>>What do you mean, behind ? Ever cared to look, how much
>>silicon 3dfx is sticking on their 3d add-on boards compared
>>to 2d/3d single chip solutions?
>What does that have to do with anything ?
>
>They're behind because they are just now catching up to Voodoo2
>performance not because of the perceived amount of silicon you think
>they have on their chip.
John Shiali
>
> Joel Mack wrote...
>
> >
> > Well, it's good to see nVidia is now only 6 months behind 3Dfx, instead
> > of a year...
>
> What do you mean, behind ? Ever cared to look, how much silicon 3dfx is
> sticking on their 3d add-on boards compared to 2d/3d single chip
> solutions?
>
Doesn't matter - they're out there at the top of the performance tree,
making sales and market share for the last 6 months while TNT has sold
exactly zero units as yet.
--
Station Omega at http://www.heights.demon.co.uk - The Space-sim Portal
John -
Why, why, why, why, why, WHY???!??!?!
Christian Klassen
BP schrieb in Nachricht <35e6bef7...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
>They're behind because they are just now catching up to Voodoo2
>performance not because of the perceived amount of silicon you think
>they have on their chip.
>
You are right, but what I meant was, that the other companies
are not really behind technology-wise. The Voodoo2 is more
a 'brute force' approach, IMHO.
Christian
Worker Working
>
> This is like arguing that PCs are "behind" consoles in the area of gaming.
> Specialized hardware (in this case, 3D-only hardware) does not have the same
> constraints as generalized hardware.
>
> Incidentally, that's why banshee is slower and lacks features compared to
> the competition, and (we hope) not because 3dfx has mediocre engineers.
>
> Jeff
>
This has been beat to death a million times already but I can't imagine
that anyone (especially you, Jeff, you've participated in more of these
threads than *I* have and I'm doing it because I'm bored at work) but
the second Texture processor was not left off because they *couldn't* do
it but because they shouldn't do it.
Nobody was going to put a Banshee in a Voodoo2 machine. The Banshee was
designed for new systems and 2D upgrades and was hobbled so it wouldn't
kill the 3D standalone market which is doing very well for 3DFX.
Hardcore gamers are STILL buying Voodoo II cards. Hell, just check out
the sim newsgroup.
Do you honestly believe that the designers who released the Voodoo2 7
months ago couldn't design in the second texture processor in Banshee?
ttammi
>Incorrect, though, because Turok on D3D and Turok on GLIDE are
>pixel-for-pixel identical. In fact I have a bunch of screenshots of the RIVA
>128 (D3D) and the 3dfx (GLIDE) running Turok in the same area that you can
>compare. If you are interested, e-mail me.
>
>You guys forget the way these games are written: there is a SINGLE graphics
>engine that calls through to the graphics API. Unless they build two
>different EXEs, the graphics calls are pretty much identical, the only thing
>different is which API they call down to.
Untrue. Case in point: Wing Commander Prophecy, where the D3D version
lacked some transparency effects even on those D3D cards which could
have handled them. Longbow 2 could be another example.
.
HQH51
where as low programmers get paid to beat D3D creating GLIDE.
PS->MS, don't take my words too seriously. It's just my opinion...
In article <6s4rf8$b...@news1.emarites.net.ae>, "DVS Lurker"
<asad....@usa.net> writes:
>But, it doesn't RUN GLIDE games!!!!! Case Closed! Have you seen the quality
>in GLIDE games!? I got MK4 yesterday. I have a sucking D3D only card; ever
>heard of Creative Graphic Blaster 3D ? ( by the way, how is this card anyway
>? ) Ok, So, the I got D3D working in Mk4. it was good. But when I saw my
>next door neighbour running the game in GLIDE. I was disappointed, and that
>is where I said that its about time Direct3D should SUCK IT!
=======================================================
Like Duke Nukem said, "Time to kick @$$ and chew bubble gum, but I'm all outta
gum."
=======================================================
HQH51
In article <35e5e6b...@news.swbell.net>, seanhoff(nospam)@swbell.net (Sean
Hoffman) writes:
>Hmmm... I'd be willing to BET 3DFX has something in the works...
HQH51
In article <35e6bef7...@news.mindspring.com>, six...@mindspring.com ( BP)
writes:
>They're behind because they are just now catching up to Voodoo2
>performance not because of the perceived amount of silicon you think
>they have on their chip.
>
>Hell if the amount of silicon is what matters I know some women that
>you can plug into and get 5000 fps. ;-)
CSY
BP wrote in message <35e6bef7...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On 28 Aug 1998 12:33:54 GMT, ChKl...@t-online.de (Christian Klassen)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Well, it's good to see nVidia is now only 6 months behind 3Dfx, instead
of
>>>a year...
>>
>>What do you mean, behind ? Ever cared to look, how much
>>silicon 3dfx is sticking on their 3d add-on boards compared
>>to 2d/3d single chip solutions?
>
>performance not because of the perceived amount of silicon you think
>they have on their chip.
Nvidia is behind because they wanted to build a low cost, single chip 2d/3d
solution that would be appealing to OEMs and the mass market. A better
comparison would be with the Voodoo Banshee which is just only coming out
now and is slower than the TNT.
>
Worker Working
>
> Voodoo the 3rd!! Hehehe...
>
> In article <35e5e6b...@news.swbell.net>, seanhoff(nospam)@swbell.net (Sean
> Hoffman) writes:
>
> >Hmmm... I'd be willing to BET 3DFX has something in the works...
>
ve3d.net (VoodooExtreme) had a news article from 3DFX said that before
their next chipset comes out they will have a Banshee product which
includes the dual texture units.
Jeff Atwood
sold. Just to put things in perspective a little. One of the cons of the
3dfx model is that 99.9% of sales are retail, and to a very specific group.
There are of course many upsides to this as well, but raw sales is not one
of them.
Jeff
John Shiali wrote in message <8766...@heights.demon.co.uk>...
>Christian Klassen wrote...
>
>
>>
>> Joel Mack wrote...
>>
>> >
>> > Well, it's good to see nVidia is now only 6 months behind 3Dfx, instead
>> > of a year...
>>
>> What do you mean, behind ? Ever cared to look, how much silicon 3dfx is
>> sticking on their 3d add-on boards compared to 2d/3d single chip
>> solutions?
>>
>
Jeff Atwood
>Jeff Atwood wrote:
>>
>> This is like arguing that PCs are "behind" consoles in the area of
gaming.
>> Specialized hardware (in this case, 3D-only hardware) does not have the
same
>> constraints as generalized hardware.
>>
>> Incidentally, that's why banshee is slower and lacks features compared to
>> the competition, and (we hope) not because 3dfx has mediocre engineers.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
>This has been beat to death a million times already but I can't imagine
>that anyone (especially you, Jeff, you've participated in more of these
>threads than *I* have and I'm doing it because I'm bored at work) but
>the second Texture processor was not left off because they *couldn't* do
>it but because they shouldn't do it.
>
Integrating a second pixel pipeline is not a trivial matter. I'm sure when
they sat down to design this, they thought a single pixel unit at 100mpix
would be competitive. You are forgetting that banshee is over 6 months late.
>Nobody was going to put a Banshee in a Voodoo2 machine. The Banshee was
>designed for new systems and 2D upgrades and was hobbled so it wouldn't
>kill the 3D standalone market which is doing very well for 3DFX.
>Hardcore gamers are STILL buying Voodoo II cards. Hell, just check out
>the sim newsgroup.
>
I don't think a banshee with multitexture would necessarily kill the add-on
3D market for 3dfx. However, it's academic because 3dfx can't make one in
time to compete with voodoo 2, although their competitors certainly can.
What difference does it make ultimately if 3dfx kills the market for voodoo
2 or if their competitors do? Either way, it's going the way of the dodo.
3dfx has already said they will never make another 3d-only board. Imagine if
they did-- it would have to have 16+mb of memory and probably four texelfx
chips. Incredibly expensive in a day and age of integrated single chip
designs with 2mb SGRAM chips, but I can assure you it would be DRAMATICALLY
faster than any of those cards.
>Do you honestly believe that the designers who released the Voodoo2 7
>months ago couldn't design in the second texture processor in Banshee?
Yes, I do. Voodoo 2 is not much more than a voodoo 1 running at twice the
clock speed, with more memory, and an additional texelfx chip on the board.
Hardly a radical redesign by any standards. Voodoo 2 is a nice product, but
a radical departure it's not.
However, sitting down and designing a single integrated 2D/3D chipset from a
company that has NEVER released such a chip-- meaning they had to start from
complete scratch-- is difficult. That's why nvidia, #9, ATI, permidia, heck
even S3 had a head start on them. They already had products, however flawed,
to draw resources and engineers from.
Jeff
Jeff Atwood
the vision to pull it off when everyone said they were nuts back in 1995.
3dfx still has an important place in the pantheon of 3D acceleration on the
PC, but the time for brute force approaches is reaching an end.
Jeff
Christian Klassen wrote in message <6s6jd7$1ed$1...@news00.btx.dtag.de>...
>
>BP schrieb in Nachricht <35e6bef7...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
>>
>>They're behind because they are just now catching up to Voodoo2
Jeff Atwood
identical in both versions. And so does Turok. Longbow 2 just had another
D3D patch released today so things might have changed on that front as well.
P.S. Carmageddon 2 looks identical in D3D and Glide mode, too, at least on
my machine. Glide is slightly faster on my P2-450, but they look the same.
Great demo, check it out if you haven't.
Jeff
ttammi wrote in message <35f517ee...@news.netlife.fi>...
Lucy Strzepek
>
> >They're behind because they are just now catching up to Voodoo2
> >performance not because of the perceived amount of silicon you think
> >they have on their chip.
>
> You are right, but what I meant was, that the other companies
> are not really behind technology-wise. The Voodoo2 is more
> a 'brute force' approach, IMHO.
Whatever works ; ). Have you ever looked at Intel's 3D approach vs
AMD's? (brute force fpu vs 3Dnow ingenuity [before intel releases KNI,
that is])
Chris J. Randolph
better memory and boosts the clock of the V2 up around 115-125 mhz, somewhere. I
dunno, should be kickin'.
Chris J. Randolph
card, running the Laguna chipset. The Permedia 2 board was the CL Graphics
Blaster Extreme. Lemme check into this one. Seems to sound right from when I
used to sell them, though...
-Chris
van...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <6s4rf8$b...@news1.emarites.net.ae>,
> "DVS Lurker" <asad....@usa.net> wrote:
> > But, it doesn't RUN GLIDE games!!!!! Case Closed! Have you seen the quality
> > in GLIDE games!? I got MK4 yesterday. I have a sucking D3D only card; ever
> > heard of Creative Graphic Blaster 3D ? ( by the way, how is this card anyway
> > ? ) Ok, So, the I got D3D working in Mk4. it was good. But when I saw my
> > next door neighbour running the game in GLIDE. I was disappointed, and that
> > is where I said that its about time Direct3D should SUCK IT!
>
> CL Graphics Blaster 3D is a Permedia 2 board, I think. I saw it running
> "Red Line Racer" and right next to it the same game on a Voodoo 2. Of course
> it looked better than in the GB. But that's not the rule. Look at the Matrox
> G200, for instance: even though it does not support OpenGL by now, the image
> quality of Quake II running on it is FAR superior to the one of a Voodoo 2.
> And it's running Q2 through a Direct3D wrapper so OpenGL works!!! Being a
> GLIDE game does not necessarily mean it will look much better, or better at
> all, than the same game with Direct3D. The good thing about TNT is that it's
> a single board 2D/3D solution - quite good for someone building a new system,
> is somewhat faster than a single Voodoo 2, and seems to have much improved
> graphics quality, even though it does not support GLIDE.
>
> I don't have any 3D games by the moment, and eve if I did, it would suck in
> my P133. But I'm planning to buy a new system, and do not want to spend a
> huge amount of money, so I'll stick with the TNT, or any other 2D/3D combo
> that gives me good performance/price relation.
>
> BTW, for you saying that Voodoo 2 is cheap now, here in Brazil the cheapest
> I found was a Creative Labs 3D Blaster 8 Mb for - WOW - R$ 458 (more than US$
> 400). :-)
>
> Marcelo.
Chris J. Randolph
really see where th brute force perception comes from, everyone's
hammering on those poly's as hard as they can. :)
Christian Klassen wrote:
> BP schrieb in Nachricht <35e6bef7...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
> >
> >They're behind because they are just now catching up to Voodoo2
> >performance not because of the perceived amount of silicon you think
> >they have on their chip.
> >
>
> You are right, but what I meant was, that the other companies
> are not really behind technology-wise. The Voodoo2 is more
> a 'brute force' approach, IMHO.
>
> Christian
Chris J. Randolph
From the source I'd heard it, the Banshee eschewed the second TMU to keep
the price down, thus keeping it in the range of the all important (and main,
target I might add) OEM market. Of course, I can't remember where the quote
was from, but it seems sound to me.
-Chris
MB
Chris J. Randolph <*Ky...@Evildead.com*> wrote in message
<6s88uh$kli$3...@nntp2.ba.best.com>...
van...@my-dejanews.com
"Chris J. Randolph" <*Ky...@Evildead.com*> wrote:
> I could be wrong about this, but I thought the CL Graphics Blaster 3D was the
old
> card, running the Laguna chipset. The Permedia 2 board was the CL Graphics
> Blaster Extreme. Lemme check into this one. Seems to sound right from when I
> used to sell them, though...
> -Chris
Yeah, I got confused with tha one. :-)
The one I saw running was really a Graphics Blaster Extreme, though, with
the Permedia 2 chip. Anyway, that was really not the point of the post. :-)
DVS Lurker
Chipset any good ? And just for a little bit more info, there are 2 Graphics
Blaster 3D out there. One is known as Creative Graphics Blaster 3D and the
other one is known as Creative Graphics Blaster 3D EXTREME. The EXTREME is
the one which utilizes the Premedia chipset. But what do you guys think of
this card ? Anyone owns ths card ?
MB wrote in message <35e7a...@news.mocc.net>...
>I think the Graphics Blaster 3D uses the Rendition V1000.
>
>Chris J. Randolph <*Ky...@Evildead.com*> wrote in message
><6s88uh$kli$3...@nntp2.ba.best.com>...
>>I could be wrong about this, but I thought the CL Graphics Blaster 3D was
>the old
>>card, running the Laguna chipset. The Permedia 2 board was the CL
Graphics
>>Blaster Extreme. Lemme check into this one. Seems to sound right from
>when I
>>used to sell them, though...
>>-Chris
>>
>>> 400). :-)
DVS Lurker
contains 4 Mb Ram. Its a 2D/3D card. All its supports is D3D and thats it. I
can't even run Turok DEMO on the card. Unless I reduce the res to 320x220.
Then also its doesn't wanna run properly. The cards a joke I tell you. By
the way, which is the best 'looking' D3D game you've seen ?
Matt
MATCH FOR THE VOODOO 2 in 3D QUALITY.
Mike Storr wrote in message <35e55fd5...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
>
>From http://www.fastgraphics.com/rev-v550.html :
>
>The king is dead... Long live the king !!!
>Finally, someone has been able to beat the half year old Voodoo
>II chipset from 3Dfx. The Riva TNT chipset doesn't just offer
>better image quality than the Voodoo II chipset, it also
>outperforms Voodoo II on all benchmarks but the Quake II test...
>This is probably since the OpenGL driver needs some more
>tweaking. In games like Turok we see that the Riva TNT chipset
>outperforms a single Voodoo II who's running that same game in
>Glide...
>
>
>
Clauswitz
mat...@frontiernetDONTEMAILME.net says...
> YOU ARE THE MOST FUCKING STUPIDEST FAG IN THE WORLD. THE RIVA TNT is NO
> MATCH FOR THE VOODOO 2 in 3D QUALITY.
>
what we have here is a prime example of doctorate level work, see the
well thought out thesis backed up by evidence
do you have anything to base this on besides pure fanaticism?
Worker Working
> >months ago couldn't design in the second texture processor in Banshee?
>
> Yes, I do. Voodoo 2 is not much more than a voodoo 1 running at twice the
> clock speed, with more memory, and an additional texelfx chip on the board.
> Hardly a radical redesign by any standards. Voodoo 2 is a nice product, but
> a radical departure it's not.
>
> However, sitting down and designing a single integrated 2D/3D chipset from a
> company that has NEVER released such a chip-- meaning they had to start from
> complete scratch-- is difficult. That's why nvidia, #9, ATI, permidia, heck
> even S3 had a head start on them. They already had products, however flawed,
> to draw resources and engineers from.
>
> Jeff
If you check the news archives at ve3d.net, in an interview 3DFX was
asked what's next. The answer was that before they come out with their
next chipset, they have a dual-texture Banshee on the way.
As for their 2D/3D they seemed to do DAMN WELL with the 2D part for it
being their first time out.
I guess you could argue that it took them too long to design in the
second texture unit, while I suppose I'll have to agree to disagree,
sticking with my belief (I suppose we'll never know) that it was a
strategic move while milking the Voodoo2 market.
I have noted on here before that perhaps we are reaching a technological
plateau. With several cards reaching the market from several different
vendors (S3, Matrox, nVidia) all of which have VERY similar performance
(within 10% of each other?) it makes me wonder if we have reached a
threshold which will take a leap of technology to cross.
I *am* excited to see what 3DFX may have up their sleeve, but I won't
claim that they will "rock" or "kick ass" without seeing some cards in
some reviewers hands...
MB
chipset.
Creative sure isnt very _creative_ when it comes to naming their freakin
video cards.
The Laguna3D chipset is not very good. It was pretty much destroyed by
Rendition's Verite V1000 chip which was destroyed by 3dfx Voodoo1.
A little processor perspective for the cards in that generation; the Laguna
chipset does 15Mpixels/sec, V1000 does 25Mpixels/sec, Voodoo1 does
45Mpixels/sec. Both the Voodoo1 and V1000 have better hardware features and
performance.
DVS Lurker wrote in message <6s9uhl$a...@news1.emarites.net.ae>...
>No. The Graphics Blaster 3D uses the Cirrus Logic Laguna Chipset. Is this
>Chipset any good ? And just for a little bit more info, there are 2
Graphics
>Blaster 3D out there. One is known as Creative Graphics Blaster 3D and the
>other one is known as Creative Graphics Blaster 3D EXTREME. The EXTREME is
>the one which utilizes the Premedia chipset. But what do you guys think of
>this card ? Anyone owns ths card ?
>
>MB wrote in message <35e7a...@news.mocc.net>...
>>I think the Graphics Blaster 3D uses the Rendition V1000.
>>
Michael
Sounds good - I think the Graphics Blaster 3D uses the Rendition, the
Graphics Blaster PCI used the Laguna, the Exxtreme uses the Permedia2, the
Graphics Blaster TNT uses the TNT, and the #D Blaster uses the V2. I think
there's a Banshee one coming soon as well, but I don't have a clue what the
name will be.
Michael
--
To reply, remove .X, or click below:
mot...@quantum.net.au
Rick Reitano
<Clau...@NO-SPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
As a longtime 3DFX supporter (owner) it is because of half-wits like
that that 3DFX owners look like raving lunatics.
I think it's pretty much accepted that Matrox's slower G200 and
nVidia's excellent TNT both have better picture quality than a Voodoo2
with S3's Savage3D bringing up the rear.
Both Matrox and TNT do less filtering so the picture quality is
crisper.
Don't take my word for it. Check ANY hardware site that has done a
comparison:
www.tomshardware.com
www.cyrellis.com
www.anandtech.com
Or, you can take that original poster's word for it and maybe we are
all THE MOST FUCKING STUPIDEST FAG IN THE WORLD...
McQuail
you guys crack me up. Everyone is always saying like, TNT is 50000 frames
faster than this card, or Voodoo 2 is not as good as it was when it came out
now that Card X is out.. who cares? I mean, we're talking about framerates
faster than the human eye can register ... I saw a site with a scorecard of
who had the fastest Quake fps and Quake 2 fps.. some guy had a Voodoo2 SLI
config with a Thriller 3D as his 2d card, or something, and he had like 207
fps.. I mean. c'mon..
I have a Diamond Monster 3d.. it's not new, it's probably not the fastest
card out there.. but *no* games slow down on it, and everything looks
great..
sometimes I wonder if people these days care about playing games or bragging
/ arguing about who's got the best toys..
Christian Klassen wrote in message <6s683i$a0g$1...@news01.btx.dtag.de>...
>
>Joel Mack wrote...
>
>>
>>Well, it's good to see nVidia is now only 6 months behind 3Dfx, instead of
>>a year...
>
>What do you mean, behind ? Ever cared to look, how much
>silicon 3dfx is sticking on their 3d add-on boards compared
>to 2d/3d single chip solutions?
>
> Christian
>
>
John Shiali
>
> I have noted on here before that perhaps we are reaching a technological
> plateau. With several cards reaching the market from several different
> vendors (S3, Matrox, nVidia) all of which have VERY similar performance
> (within 10% of each other?) it makes me wonder if we have reached a
> threshold which will take a leap of technology to cross.
>
> I *am* excited to see what 3DFX may have up their sleeve, but I won't
> claim that they will "rock" or "kick ass" without seeing some cards in
> some reviewers hands...
>
Next step will be from 3DFX with Voodoo 2 SLI on a single chip with
2D, and then everyone else will be chasing that performance hike.
After that, look out as companies start putting geometry engines on
their cards...
--
A Talent For War at http://atfw.intelligamer.com - The Space-sim Portal
John -
"I used to love fighting with Dolly Parton over toe nail clippings. But, of course, I had to give all that up when I became famous." - Robert Llewellyn
Doug
>3dfx still has an important place in the pantheon of 3D acceleration on the
>PC, but the time for brute force approaches is reaching an end.
If you define the "brute force approach" as having a seperate 3D card,
yes.
On the other hand, as some others have stated, I couldn't care less
about how many chips they use to accomplish the task. There's room
for different design approaches.... Of course, I want good prices,
and single-chip designs should have an advantage there.
Doug
>As a longtime 3DFX supporter (owner) it is because of half-wits like
>that that 3DFX owners look like raving lunatics.
Don't worry about it. Probably well over half the people in this
group own 3dfx products. And we don't look like raving lunatics. (Do
we?)
Jeff McClain
the Monster2 12MB cards did overwhelmingly better than even guys with PII300's
on a Voodoo1. Even a PII-233 with Voodoo2 did better. And it wasn't just the
user...we mixed it up a bit and people always did better on the Voodoo2 machines.
I tend to agree with you, but you have to remember that the eye really does detect
DISCRETE frames (not motion blurred video) up to around 60 (ok...it varies for
different people and different video...but you get the idea). Also, you have to
remember that these FPS postings are an AVERAGE. Which means that at times, that
90fps may be down in the 20-30's (or worse if you look at the CRUSHER demo). And
when it starts jerking like that, mouse responsive ness and other things definately
do affect your playing performance. I promise! CRUSHER.DM2 framerates and DEMO1.DM2
are totally different too...CRUSHER.DM2 is *much* more related to CPU power (calculating
particles and all of the polygon setup) since you are fill rate limited on just about
*any* mediocre 3D card in this demo (until you get up to a PII-400 or better, anyways).
I do agree that there is way too much "purchase justification" going on in these news
groups. Too many people just have to justify what they spent their $$ on...me, I
get them all and try them all out...heheh...
Jeff
http://jeffshardware.computerheaven.net
McQuail wrote:
>
> heh..
> you guys crack me up. Everyone is always saying like, TNT is 50000 frames
> faster than this card, or Voodoo 2 is not as good as it was when it came out
> now that Card X is out.. who cares? I mean, we're talking about framerates
> faster than the human eye can register ... I saw a site with a scorecard of
> who had the fastest Quake fps and Quake 2 fps.. some guy had a Voodoo2 SLI
> config with a Thriller 3D as his 2d card, or something, and he had like 207
> fps.. I mean. c'mon..
>
> I have a Diamond Monster 3d.. it's not new, it's probably not the fastest
> card out there.. but *no* games slow down on it, and everything looks
> great..
>
> sometimes I wonder if people these days care about playing games or bragging
> / arguing about who's got the best toys..
--
========================================
Jeff McClain Product Engineering
MICR0N TECHN0LOGY jmcc...@micron.com
voice (208) 368-5483
fax (208) 368-4495
========================================
Rick Reitano
wrote:
>heh..
>you guys crack me up. Everyone is always saying like, TNT is 50000 frames
>faster than this card, or Voodoo 2 is not as good as it was when it came out
>now that Card X is out.. who cares? I mean, we're talking about framerates
>faster than the human eye can register ... I saw a site with a scorecard of
>who had the fastest Quake fps and Quake 2 fps.. some guy had a Voodoo2 SLI
>config with a Thriller 3D as his 2d card, or something, and he had like 207
>fps.. I mean. c'mon..
>
If you were about to buy a card today that you hoped would last 6
months before replacement would you buy a US$100 card that had a Turok
framerate of 47fps or a US$100 card with a Turok framerate of (no
joke) 146fps?
Regardless of whether I can SEE 146fps, when Messiah (pick an upcoming
game with a different game-engine) comes out would YOU want to have
the card that's running Turok at 34fps?
Not me! Keep those framerate comparisons coming!
Data used above:
Matrox G200 (seen for OEM US$80) with 146 fps
Diamond FireGL Pro with 47 fps
www.tomshardware.com
Richard Krehbiel
>heh..
>you guys crack me up. Everyone is always saying like, TNT is 50000 frames
>faster than this card, or Voodoo 2 is not as good as it was when it came
out
>now that Card X is out.. who cares? I mean, we're talking about framerates
>faster than the human eye can register ... I saw a site with a scorecard of
>who had the fastest Quake fps and Quake 2 fps.. some guy had a Voodoo2 SLI
>config with a Thriller 3D as his 2d card, or something, and he had like 207
>fps.. I mean. c'mon..
>
>card out there.. but *no* games slow down on it, and everything looks
>great..
>
>sometimes I wonder if people these days care about playing games or
bragging
>/ arguing about who's got the best toys..
Say a card can do 120FPS in Quake. 120FPS is ridiculous indeed. Nobody
needs 120FPS. Anybody who buys 120FPS is a moron since the human can't
percieve 120FPS. So buy the card that does 30FPS and save your money.
But wait - the card that does 120FPS in Quake only does 80FPS in Quake 2 and
50FPS in Unreal. Why the difference? Those games do more complex
rendering.
In a few months we'll begin seeing benchmarks of Quake III: Arena,
Daikatana, Half-Life, Messiah, various Unreal-based games, who knows what
else. These games will tax 3D cards even *more*. So your card that does a
perfectly wonderful 30FPS in Quake needs tweaking and overclocking and
feature-disabling to get up to 10FPS.
--
Richard Krehbiel, Kastle Systems, Arlington VA USA
ri...@kastle.com (work) or ri...@mnsinc.com (personal)
Peter Söderman
wrote:
[snip]
>
>I have a Diamond Monster 3d.. it's not new, it's probably not the fastest
>card out there.. but *no* games slow down on it, and everything looks
>great..
>
[snip]
I can hear you haven't tried Unreal yet. ;-)
/PeterS
---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Söderman
pet...@soderman.pp.se.earth
Remove earth to e-mail
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MB
>>you guys crack me up. Everyone is always saying like, TNT is 50000 frames
>>faster than this card, or Voodoo 2 is not as good as it was when it came
out
>>now that Card X is out.. who cares? I mean, we're talking about
framerates
>>faster than the human eye can register ... I saw a site with a scorecard
of
>>who had the fastest Quake fps and Quake 2 fps.. some guy had a Voodoo2 SLI
>>config with a Thriller 3D as his 2d card, or something, and he had like
207
>>fps.. I mean. c'mon..
>>
>
>months before replacement would you buy a US$100 card that had a Turok
>framerate of 47fps or a US$100 card with a Turok framerate of (no
>joke) 146fps?
>
>Regardless of whether I can SEE 146fps, when Messiah (pick an upcoming
>game with a different game-engine) comes out would YOU want to have
>the card that's running Turok at 34fps?
>
>Not me! Keep those framerate comparisons coming!
>
>Data used above:
>Matrox G200 (seen for OEM US$80) with 146 fps
>Diamond FireGL Pro with 47 fps
>www.tomshardware.com
I think you better go back and check your source. G200 is nowhere near
146fps in Turok. Try 86 in 640x480 and 53 in 800x600. G200 in Forsaken
640x480 does 146, but only 88 in 800x600. 800x600 is the mark that matters.
Forsaken is not a mark to use when looking for a card anyway. Especially
when the same card that gets 146/88 in Forsaken only gets 69/47 in Incoming
and 42/28 in Quake2. And all those marks are from a PII400.
G200 is a new card starting behind the competition. Deffinately not
something to plan a future on.
Zenomorph
>I have noted on here before that perhaps we are reaching a technological
>plateau. With several cards reaching the market from several different
>vendors (S3, Matrox, nVidia) all of which have VERY similar performance
>(within 10% of each other?) it makes me wonder if we have reached a
>threshold which will take a leap of technology to cross.
Nah, there is no plateau. Look at the history. It took the
competitors this long to catch up with Voodoo1. Shortly after they
did, 3Dfx released a much faster product. We're still at the point
where everyone is catching up.
>I *am* excited to see what 3DFX may have up their sleeve, but I won't
>claim that they will "rock" or "kick ass" without seeing some cards in
>some reviewers hands...
Their next generation (tentatively "Rampage") is supposed to be 3-4
times faster than Voodoo2. No word on any other improvements to
quality or feature set, though.
Byron Montgomerie
You do, you look like a freak, especially the hat. :)
DVS Lurker
Doug wrote in message <35eaed74...@news.dgii.com>...
Anonymous
Storr) wrote:
> From http://www.fastgraphics.com/rev-v550.html :
>
> The king is dead... Long live the king !!!
> Finally, someone has been able to beat the half year old Voodoo
> II chipset from 3Dfx. The Riva TNT chipset doesn't just offer
> better image quality than the Voodoo II chipset, it also
> outperforms Voodoo II on all benchmarks but the Quake II test...
> This is probably since the OpenGL driver needs some more
> tweaking. In games like Turok we see that the Riva TNT chipset
> outperforms a single Voodoo II who's running that same game in
> Glide...
Actually, looks like the TNT is running away from their own claims!
THEY claimed it would be comparable to a V2 SLI. It seems they have
lied to us; and now are praying to god we forget about it.
The TNT may be better from a "cost/benefits" stand point; but its not a
true contender for performance.
Terry Claydon
MATCH FOR THE Riva TnT in 3D QUALITY.
Matt wrote in message <6sa0lg$1uia$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
>YOU ARE THE MOST FUCKING STUPIDEST FAG IN THE WORLD. THE RIVA TNT is NO
>MATCH FOR THE VOODOO 2 in 3D QUALITY.
>
>
>Mike Storr wrote in message <35e55fd5...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
>>
Jeff Atwood
(around 25-30fps). The large textures patch looks insane at that res. It
really is a sight to behold.
Jeff
david_s...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6si3qn$r5k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
>> 800x600 is the mark that matters.
>
>Not for my money. I'm looking into a new motherboard and graphics card.
>Banshee, TNT, G200, and many of the other newer chips coming out support
much
>higher resolutions (as high as 1900x1200 in some cases). So 800x600 is not
a
>limitation I'm interested in living with. It's probably not practical to
>expect much higher than 1024x768 in many games, but those are the benchmark
>numbers I look at, not 800x600. The only reason I can think of to look at
>800x600 is you already have a V2 card and want to see how it stacks up,
>otherwise even the 3dfx Banshee based cards can do better. If you start
>looking at higher resolution then framerates become a serious issue and
>performance is again the limiting factor. Also you can probably expect a
>shift from 16 bit color to 32 bit color over the next year or so which will
>tax framerates again.
>
>> G200 is a new card starting behind the competition. Deffinately not
>> something to plan a future on.
>
>The appeal of the G200 (and the TNT for that matter) is it has better image
>quality than Voodoo2, at least according to most reviewers.
>
>Most people like me (looking at a new system) are not going to be
interested
>in a two board solution if they can get comparable product at the same or
>lower cost in a single card. For this reason I would speculate that 2D/3D
>cards are where the market is going to be in the future. In that market,
if
>you go by specs, and even to some degree benchmarks, 3dfx is a little
behind
>the competition. With only one TMU the Banshee looses it's comptetitive
edge
>in Quake II, it does not have 32 bit color, there Z-buffer is only 16 bits
>where competitors cards are 24 and even 32 bits, and they don't have many
of
>the newer image inhancing features (like full scene anti-aliasing and bump
>mapping) which are now showing up in chips like TNT. These differences
>account for the reported increase in image quality many reviewers are
seeing
>in the G200 and TNT. The only reason for me to consider Banshee is Glide
and
>that's enough for me to keep it under consideration.
david_s...@my-dejanews.com
MB
that matter in those results... 640x480 results dont mean jack.
Resolution is a personal preference thing. I prefer 800x600 over 1024x768.
david_s...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6si3qn$r5k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
Paul Campbell
>
>
> Their next generation (tentatively "Rampage") is supposed to be 3-4
> times faster than Voodoo2. No word on any other improvements to
> quality or feature set, though.
Some interview I read hints at dynamic lighting and shadows in hardware.
Paul C.
Rick Reitano
>Sorry, should have clarified.. I meant that the 800x600 marks are the ones
>that matter in those results... 640x480 results dont mean jack.
>Resolution is a personal preference thing. I prefer 800x600 over 1024x768.
>
I know this is gonna sound like a flame but could you explain why
800x600 could EVER be preferred over a higher resolution?
I guess if you were running on a 14" monitor you could say that there
is no difference, but how could you WANT a lower resolution?
I only have a 17" (all my goddamn coworkers got 19 inches with their
new goddamn systems -- but I'm not bitter :) ) but the difference
between running 1024x768 vs. 800x600 is substantial concerning detail
and texture clarity...
MB
On a 19" it might be different. On a 17" the only difference I notice in
games like Quake2 and Unreal is the text is very small. The performance hit
compared to visual difference in 1024x768 is just not worth it to me.
Mike Ching
support it badly, eg., the terrain map in Battlezone is useless above
800x600. I prefer not to waste money on what will be used in the future but
is not useful now. When there is a shift to higher resolution and 32-bit color,
today's boards will be too slow and I would have spent money on overkill now
and inadequate then.
On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 20:33:41 -0600, Jeff Atwood <jat...@nospammy.a.crl.com.nospammy> wrote:
>As for the 800x600 mark-- Battlezone runs GREAT at 1280x1024 on my TNT
>(around 25-30fps). The large textures patch looks insane at that res. It
>really is a sight to behold.
>
>Jeff
>
Zenomorph
Yeah, there's a new interview with Scott Sellars that hints at a few
other things about it. Nothing concrete though. Part of me
would like to see 3Dfx drop the bomb (full out announce) Rampage now
just to screw up Nvidia's TNT release (since Nvidia did that to 3Dfx
when V2 was released). But most of the rest of me realizes that
would just shoot their own foot in terms of V2 and Banshee sales.
Oh well... sigh...
Timothy McNeill
supported in mass like D3D and Open GL. Glide is a 3dfx thing and shame on
proprietary API's in a world where we should all have the same experience.
You are dead wrong to support a specific API for your own needs. This is
what is killing the PC industry and will till we keep eliminating so many
standards rather then one, or two that we all can enjoy!!
DVS Lurker wrote in message <6s4rf8$b...@news1.emarites.net.ae>...
>>>From http://www.fastgraphics.com/rev-v550.html :
>>>
>>>The king is dead... Long live the king !!!
>>>Finally, someone has been able to beat the half year old Voodoo
>>>II chipset from 3Dfx. The Riva TNT chipset doesn't just offer
>>>better image quality than the Voodoo II chipset, it also
>>>outperforms Voodoo II on all benchmarks but the Quake II test...
>>>This is probably since the OpenGL driver needs some more
>>>tweaking. In games like Turok we see that the Riva TNT chipset
>>>outperforms a single Voodoo II who's running that same game in
>>>Glide...
>
>
Timothy McNeill
compute, do web graphics and enjoy the Internet. Voodoo is no good at any
of these things except games. It only took them this long to bring out the
shitty Banshee. Now, reports are circulating about an interview with some
3dfx guru who even states offerings from them will do both 2d/3d. I guess
3dfx took too long to realize the importance of reaching the main stream.
The Banshee is not a Voodoo 2 killer or similar in real world gaming numbers
(I know the drivers are in the development stage, so where NVIDIAS TNT
drivers). 3Dfx was late to the mainstream table and now their offering
shows their neglect and financial survival if they don't move on faster and
to the mainstream computer user.
Christian Klassen wrote in message <6s6jd7$1ed$1...@news00.btx.dtag.de>...
>
>BP schrieb in Nachricht <35e6bef7...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
>>
>>They're behind because they are just now catching up to Voodoo2
>>performance not because of the perceived amount of silicon you think
>>they have on their chip.
>>
>
>
>You are right, but what I meant was, that the other companies
>are not really behind technology-wise. The Voodoo2 is more
>a 'brute force' approach, IMHO.
>
> Christian
>
>
MB
is designed to be a low cost, good performance, 2D/3D video card. It's 3D
performance may not be quite up to TNT standards but it is a fast card and
performs well above current offerings from major computer sellers. It also
costs less than TNT.
You need to look at some facts before trying to estimate 3dfx's financial
future though.
Despite the fact other companies are releasing fast 2D/3D cards in the next
couple months, Voodoo2 is still selling like crazy. 3dfx posted a higher
than expected profit for the 2nd quarter, which was 2mil over Q1. First
half revenue this year is 10x last years first half.
Gateway and Micron have recently added Voodoo2 to the options on new
computer sales. Top 2 video cards (notice video, not just 3D) sold in June
according to PCData? Monster3DII 12MB and 8MB. #5 = Monster1. In fact, a
Voodoo2 was the #1, 2 and 3 video card sold for Apr, May and June. I really
dont think their financial situation is at risk.
We also have to consider the "want" over "need" factor here. How many
people are going to "need" to upgrade to TNT or Savage3D or <enter card
here>. Most gamers who had a "need" to upgrade probably just spent their
money on a good 3D card like a Voodoo2. Then it comes down to -do i want to
spend money on new 2D/3D card? My 2D is good enough. My Voodoo2 makes me
happy- I certainly dont need the TNT.
Sure, some gamers will upgrade. Probably not even close to the number who
upgraded to a Voodoo2 though. Same goes for Banshee too.
Both Banshee and TNT will rely on OEM sales more than anything. 3dfx name
carries a little more weight than Nvidia.
We will just have to wait and see.
Timothy McNeill wrote in message <35ee1...@aedes.isd.net>...
Jeff Atwood
percentage of the total video card market. The vast majority of video cards
are shipped to users in new machines. That's where the lion's share of the
money is, and as hard as it is to believe, that's why ATI has 35% of the
total video card market. Yeah, it turns my stomach, too, but it's a fact--
ATI! Ecch. The OEM market is VERY important if you want to make big money.
Jeff
MB wrote in message <35ee3...@news.mocc.net>...
Jeff Atwood
Q1, now it's looking like Q4) I think they are going to be VERY hard pressed
to keep ahead of the competition in 2D/3D cards. I think they should
actually release another 3D-only card, because that's about their only
chance in hell of meeting that 3-4 times faster than voodoo 2 mark before
nvidia or S3 do.
Bear in mind 3dfx had the luxury of starting over a year ahead of their
competition with voodoo 1. It took 16 months for someone to release a card
as fast as voodoo 1, and it only took 6 months for someone to release a card
as fast as voodoo 2. Heck, it really isn't even a fair comparison since
their competition was 2D/3D and 3dfx was 3D-only.
Jeff
Zenomorph wrote in message <35ee0267...@news.mindspring.com>...
Paul Campbell
> Considering 3dfx's track record with Banshee (supposed to have been out in
> Q1, now it's looking like Q4)
They just rescheduled it to allow the earlier release of the V2. They
neverofficialy promised a shipping date of Q1 for the banshee. Somthing cant be
"late" is a shipping date was never announced.
It is particuarly hipocritcal of you to look at it this was as *you*, as a V2
owner,
have had the benefit of a fast 3d addon card 6 months earlier than would
otherwise have been possible if they had not made this decision.
> I think they are going to be VERY hard pressed
> to keep ahead of the competition in 2D/3D cards.
> I think they should
> actually release another 3D-only card, because that's about their only
> chance in hell of meeting that 3-4 times faster than voodoo 2 mark before
> nvidia or S3 do.
This is pure speculation on your part. Unless you have access to
technicalinformation about 3dfx/nvidia/S3 et al next-gen chipset that the rest
of us dont.
IMHO it is equally likely that 3dfx have a brand new TexelFX/PixelFX
core 3d near to completion and just waiting to be bolted to the new 2d
engine.
> Bear in mind 3dfx had the luxury of starting over a year ahead of their
> competition with voodoo 1. It took 16 months for someone to release a card
> as fast as voodoo 1, and it only took 6 months for someone to release a card
> as fast as voodoo 2. Heck, it really isn't even a fair comparison since
> their competition was 2D/3D and 3dfx was 3D-only.
Another way to look at this is that all the other vendors have only now
surpasseda chipset that has remained largely unchanged for two years - the V2
was not really
a signifiacantly new chipset but simply took advantage of the designed in
scalability of the original. In fact when I look at the old SDK for the V1 it
describes the architecture of SLI
and multi-TexelFX systems even before the V2 was announced.
3dfx's fortunes hang on whether they have a replacement for the two year old
PixelFX/
TexelFX core that will reach completion in the next 3-4 months. As 3dfx do not
release
details of thier technology until it is nearly complete none of us really know.
Paul C.
UK.
John Shiali
> Bear one thing in mind-- over the counter video card sales are a
> teeny-tiny
> percentage of the total video card market. The vast majority of video
> cards
> are shipped to users in new machines. That's where the lion's share of
> the
> money is, and as hard as it is to believe, that's why ATI has 35% of the
> total video card market. Yeah, it turns my stomach, too, but it's a
> fact--
> ATI! Ecch. The OEM market is VERY important if you want to make big
> money.
But we're talking (or at least we were talking) about *games* and why
3DFX cards are the primary ones that are being developed for.
ATI may have sold a lot of cards to OEMs, but if 99.99% of those
machines are going into offices to run Microsoft Word, why would a
developer write games for them? But a developer *knows* that every
one of the 4 million Voodoo cards sold has gone to a hardcore gamer,
who could buy his game.
You might as well say that developers should consider National
Semiconductor or Motorola processors because they've sold millions to
aricraft, microwaves, mobile phones, etc.
--
A Talent For War at http://atfw.intelligamer.com - The Space-sim Portal
John -
Frantic tables spotted in Brentford. "Oo-er!" said a local landlord.
Anonymous
Claydon" <dan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> YOU ARE THE MOST FUCKING STUPIDEST FAG IN THE WORLD. THE Voodoo2 is NO
> MATCH FOR THE Riva TnT in 3D QUALITY.
I dunno. The V2 looks a hell of alot better running Unreal or Janes F15...
Anonymous
<jat...@nospammy.a.crl.com.nospammy> wrote:
> As for the 800x600 mark-- Battlezone runs GREAT at 1280x1024 on my TNT
> (around 25-30fps).
What do you get at 1024x768?
25-30fps is just not fluid enough for my tastes..
MB
sales are actual gamers. Especially for Voodoo.
Jeff Atwood wrote in message <35ee7...@news.mti.net>...
>Bear one thing in mind-- over the counter video card sales are a teeny-tiny
>percentage of the total video card market. The vast majority of video cards
>are shipped to users in new machines. That's where the lion's share of the
>money is, and as hard as it is to believe, that's why ATI has 35% of the
>total video card market. Yeah, it turns my stomach, too, but it's a fact--
>ATI! Ecch. The OEM market is VERY important if you want to make big money.
>
SadCat :-(
Heheh, by your language and attitude, your tastes are shot by bad whisky and beer.
Anyhow, how do you like your 1024x768 on your SLI V2 setup?
Do you really enjoy the random sparkles, occasional lockups and enough heat
generated to replace your house heater in the winter time?
MB
pressed
>to keep ahead of the competition in 2D/3D cards. I think they should
>actually release another 3D-only card, because that's about their only
>chance in hell of meeting that 3-4 times faster than voodoo 2 mark before
>nvidia or S3 do.
Excuse me... When was the Banshee officially announced? How about June 22.
It doesnt matter what you heard about when it might be released, official
announcements are what matter.
S3 and Nvidia reaching 3-4x faster than Voodoo2 before 3dfx? Are you
insane? :)
Both those companies are just now releasing new chips that barely meet or
beat Voodoo2. You think they are going to release another new chipset any
time soon?
Look at the time span between Riva128 and TNT and its a pretty good
indicator.
3dfx has the advantage right now. I dont have any doubts of them being able
to easily out do TNT.
>Bear in mind 3dfx had the luxury of starting over a year ahead of their
>competition with voodoo 1. It took 16 months for someone to release a card
>as fast as voodoo 1, and it only took 6 months for someone to release a
card
>as fast as voodoo 2. Heck, it really isn't even a fair comparison since
>their competition was 2D/3D and 3dfx was 3D-only.
>Jeff
Not really. Voodoo2 was announced in November. Nvidia hasnt released a
chipset in over a year. It took them longer than 6 months to come up with a
card that competes with Voodoo2.
The 2D/3D to 3D-only argument is a load. The comparison is fair. Riva128
was 2D/3D and ran Direct3D faster than the 3D-Only Voodoo1. Banshee is
2D/3D and beats the 3D-only Voodoo2 in Direct3D.
MB
I think the poster was saying 1024x768 isnt worth it because of 25-30fps.
My STB BlackMagic only gets warm to the touch after 2 hours of Unreal
BotMatch. Haven't locked up once. No tearing (sparkles as you say). How
about you get one and try it for yourself instead of posting something you
heard from someone.
Nathan Mates
Timothy McNeill <tmcn...@isd.net> wrote:
>and shame on proprietary API's in a world where we should all have
>the same experience.
You want everyone to have the same experience? Get a console, and
then REALLY start to love the proprietary APIs that make everything
run. Locking the user and programmers down is the only way to enforce
games being the same; it's not openness.
There's way too much variety in PCs for games to play the same at
all-- it's never gonna happen. Also, I don't exactly see DirectX as
being less proprietary than GLide-- MS is the only one who defines and
creates DX, and we all know they've gotten it perfect from the
beginning... NOT.
Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/ <*>
# What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
# Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
# think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? -R.A. Heinlein
lithium
development long before it was officially announced. They only "announced"
the Banshee when it was near release form and ready to be drooled on by the
press...
3Dfx is no longer alone at the top of the market. Now, several companies
have developed high quality, fast 3D video products that either meet or
exceed the current 3D solutions provided by onetime market leader 3Dfx.
This comes as no surprise to us. We knew it would happen someday. After
all, nothing lasts forever.
The kind is dead! Long live the Voodoo2!
--
lithium
MB wrote in message <35eed...@news.mocc.net>...
SadCat :-(
|My STB BlackMagic only gets warm to the touch after 2 hours of Unreal
|BotMatch. Haven't locked up once. No tearing (sparkles as you say). How
|about you get one and try it for yourself instead of posting something you
|heard from someone.
Ironic that you say that as I am running Dual V2 STB BlackMagics too.
Hell, I even wrote the environment variable list for V1 and V2 so if you want
to know my name, just look at it on the list.
Better yet, I'm running 100Mhz memory on both cards and have tweaked the
cards to use the extra memory speed.
So yeah, I've been around for awhile when it comes to 3DFX.
You want to see my homemade Glide programs for the V2 cards?
One of them is called "BackOriface for Glide" and is dying to be ran
by your V2's.
Better have that Liquid Helium ready ;-)
SadCat :-(
popular is DirectX was hell to program for.
This has changed, so there is no need for Glide.
As far as OpenGL, OpenGL was not intended for gaming.
OpenGL has been around for over five years (before DirectX even) and
is made for professional rendering, mostly on SGI workstations.
I love my dual V2's but I hate your attitude and since you called me
a jerk while I was being nice in another post, I've made it a point cause you pain
no matter where you go as I can see right now that it is you that is high and mighty,
with the attitude problem, and now, like a virus, I caught it and freely give it back to
you.
|Glide is FAR more supported than OpenGL in games.
SadCat :-(
I know who you are.
You hit the shit ceiling awhile ago as if you were some sort of manic depressive
idiot, then you changed your handle so you could hide.
Don't think you can hide from us, you showed how crazy and uncool you are already.
|PS- how do you like your TNTs lousy DOS support and crummy drivers?
MB
or not the Banshee was supposed to be released in the first quarter. It
wasnt.
You think Nvidia has been sittin on their ass for over a year after
releasing Riva128?
Every card has a pretty long development time. The only thing that matters
is the official announcement.
The problem with the releases from Nvidia and S3 is they are late. Voodoo2
is aproaching the 'ready to be replaced' period for 3dfx, while Nvidia has
just started to sell their brand new chipset. Savage3D isnt even ready to
sell yet. Neither Nvidia or S3 can afford to release a faster product
within the next year. What ever card fills the Voodoo3 slot will be the
upgrade path for the millions of Voodoo2 owners... Nvidia and S3 will
release their next gen cards and it will be too late again. It's kinda like
that kid who cant get into kindergarten until he is 6 because his fifth
birthday is just over the limit.
lithium wrote in message <6smsg4$hq1$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
Ajaipal Tanwar
>heat
>generated to replace your house heater in the winter time?
TNT is hot, it has a fan too. Smartass...
--
Ajaipal Tanwar, University of Texas at Austin
john
snip
>> Get over it. The future of games is D3D and Open GL. Glide is not
>> proprietary API's in a world where we should all have the same experience.
>> what is killing the PC industry and will till we keep eliminating so many
>> standards rather then one, or two that we all can enjoy!!
>>
But of course the new announcement by Microsoft and Nivida that some texture
calls to the TNT are directly supported by Direct3d will be cheered by all
TNTaholics as a good standard.
Jim
> How do you like your worthless life, asshole?
> I know who you are. You hit the shit ceiling awhile
> ago as if you were some sort of manic depressive idiot,
> then you changed your handle so you could hide.
Looks like someone's missed their shrink again.
> Don't think you can hide from us, you showed how crazy
> and uncool you are already.
Umm, pot calling the kettle black? Man, Raytheon's looking better
by the minute. I'm just glad you don't work for the post office.
Jeff Atwood
hard-core market is important, but so is the Myst/Deer Hunter audience.
Obviously a game isn't going to run on someone's cell phone or microwave
just because they have a CPU-- what a ridiculous assertion.
Jeff
John Shiali wrote in message <8766...@heights.demon.co.uk>...
>Jeff Atwood wrote...
>
>
>> Bear one thing in mind-- over the counter video card sales are a
>> teeny-tiny
>> percentage of the total video card market. The vast majority of video
>> cards
>> are shipped to users in new machines. That's where the lion's share of
>> the
>> money is, and as hard as it is to believe, that's why ATI has 35% of the
>> total video card market. Yeah, it turns my stomach, too, but it's a
>> fact--
>> ATI! Ecch. The OEM market is VERY important if you want to make big
>> money.
>
Jeff Atwood
supposed to be released in Q1.
>>According to 3Dfx's SEC filings, Banshee was initially scheduled for
release in Q1 1998. The actual ship date looks more like Q4, however. The
slippage isn't surprising considering this is 3Dfx's first try at a single
integrated part with 2D functionality. If it had shipped in Q1, Banshee
would have taken over the world; now, however, it has to contend with
Nvidia's RIVA TNT and S3's Savage3D. <<
Can you guys get this through your pea-sized heads? 3dfx is extremely late
to market with what is, at best, a mediocre product. This does not bode well
for all of their future products, which will ALL be 2D/3D. 3dfx will NEVER
release another 3d-only part, yet is woefully behind in the 2D/3D market
already.
And Voodoo 2 is nowhere near being replaced, it's only 6 months old! What in
the hell are you talking about? I don't see a voodoo 2 replacement until mid
to late 1999 at the earliest. The banshee will get a clock rev to 125Mhz
earlier in the year, but that's about it...
p.s. The S3 Savage3D cards will be available in the next two weeks.
Jeff
MB wrote in message <35ef0...@news.mocc.net>...
Jeff Atwood
>>According to 3Dfx's SEC filings, Banshee was initially scheduled for
release in Q1 1998. The actual ship date looks more like Q4, however. The
slippage isn't surprising considering this is 3Dfx's first try at a single
integrated part with 2D functionality. If it had shipped in Q1, Banshee
would have taken over the world; now, however, it has to contend with
Nvidia's RIVA TNT and S3's Savage3D. <<
Jeff
MB wrote in message <35eed...@news.mocc.net>...
>Jeff Atwood wrote in message <35ee7...@news.mti.net>...
>>Considering 3dfx's track record with Banshee (supposed to have been out in
>>Q1, now it's looking like Q4) I think they are going to be VERY hard
>pressed
>>to keep ahead of the competition in 2D/3D cards. I think they should
>>actually release another 3D-only card, because that's about their only
>>chance in hell of meeting that 3-4 times faster than voodoo 2 mark before
>>nvidia or S3 do.
>
>
Jeff Atwood
>Jeff Atwood wrote:
>
>> Considering 3dfx's track record with Banshee (supposed to have been out
in
>> Q1, now it's looking like Q4)
>
>neverofficialy promised a shipping date of Q1 for the banshee. Somthing
cant be
>"late" is a shipping date was never announced.
>>According to 3Dfx's SEC filings, Banshee was initially scheduled for
release in Q1 1998. The actual ship date looks more like Q4, however. The
slippage isn't surprising considering this is 3Dfx's first try at a single
integrated part with 2D functionality. If it had shipped in Q1, Banshee
would have taken over the world; now, however, it has to contend with
Nvidia's RIVA TNT and S3's Savage3D. <<
Sorry, Q1 was the target date. Banshee would have been a kick ass card in
Q1, too. I consider SEC filings authoritative.
>
>It is particuarly hipocritcal of you to look at it this was as *you*, as a
V2
>owner,
>have had the benefit of a fast 3d addon card 6 months earlier than would
>otherwise have been possible if they had not made this decision.
>
I don't think that's how it went down. Banshee only has singletexture
anyway, so it's not REAL competition for V2.
>> I think they are going to be VERY hard pressed
>> to keep ahead of the competition in 2D/3D cards.
>
>> I think they should
>> actually release another 3D-only card, because that's about their only
>> chance in hell of meeting that 3-4 times faster than voodoo 2 mark before
>> nvidia or S3 do.
>
>This is pure speculation on your part. Unless you have access to
>technicalinformation about 3dfx/nvidia/S3 et al next-gen chipset that the
rest
>of us dont.
>IMHO it is equally likely that 3dfx have a brand new TexelFX/PixelFX
>core 3d near to completion and just waiting to be bolted to the new 2d
>engine.
>
My speculation is based on the lackluster performance and specs of 3dfx's
two 2D/3D cards: the voodoo RUSH and the voodoo banshee. Both were late and
compare poorly with the competition at the time they shipped. 3dfx is a
great 3D-only card company, but a mediocre 2D/3D card company. Remember they
started AHEAD of everyone else by a full year, but a lot of that was wasted
on the dead-end 3D-only design which had to be completely rewritten for
banshee-- thus the delay.
>> Bear in mind 3dfx had the luxury of starting over a year ahead of their
>> competition with voodoo 1. It took 16 months for someone to release a
card
>> as fast as voodoo 1, and it only took 6 months for someone to release a
card
>> as fast as voodoo 2. Heck, it really isn't even a fair comparison since
>> their competition was 2D/3D and 3dfx was 3D-only.
>
>Another way to look at this is that all the other vendors have only now
>surpasseda chipset that has remained largely unchanged for two years - the
V2
>was not really
>a signifiacantly new chipset but simply took advantage of the designed in
>scalability of the original. In fact when I look at the old SDK for the V1
it
>describes the architecture of SLI
>and multi-TexelFX systems even before the V2 was announced.
>
A 3d-only chipset does not suffer from the same design constraints as a
2D/3D chipset, but you are correct that V2 is not much more than V1 at
double the clock speed and with an additional texelfx chip and more memory.
>3dfx's fortunes hang on whether they have a replacement for the two year
old
>PixelFX/
>TexelFX core that will reach completion in the next 3-4 months. As 3dfx do
not
>release
>details of thier technology until it is nearly complete none of us really
know.
>
If the banshee product is any indication, they are now behind all of their
competitors. The assumption is that every company is releasing the best
products they can as fast as they can.
Jeff
Faizal
Hehehe...
Zenomorph
>Ummm, really, Glide for DOS is dead and the only reason Glide became so
>popular is DirectX was hell to program for.
That was one part of it. Another major reason was that 3Dfx sent
their own engineers to the game developers to help them understand and
port their software over to glide. Glide is a no-brainer. It's so
easy to implement, so well supported, and the results look so good,
what reason is there not to support it?
Faizal
And guess what ?
Savage 3D is the first chips in 0.25m
Link:
http://www.agn3d.com/html/agn3d-link_display.cfm?LinkID=1586
lithium
"For two years in a row, Nvidia has shipped a performance-leading 2D/3D chip
in time for the holiday buying season. This is the stuff that OEM
dreams--and big profits--are made of. No other chip company has demonstrated
Nvidia's ability to execute.
The only chip looking like it has a chance of seriously challenging TNT is
ATI's Rage 128, which won't make a big impact until the beginning of 1999.
Nvidia hopes to counter with a switch to a more advanced .25-micron process,
allowing the TNT to run at a higher clock speed and maintain its lead. After
that, of course, Nvidia will follow with a new chip for fall 1999. "
http://www.gamecenter.com/News/Item/0,3,2060,00.html?st.gc.fd.m.gn
Bottomline: NVIDIA has delivered the "goods" (if you will) on time!
SadCat :-(
of a Skanky attitude.
I had no attitude but I have one now, towards you.