ATI/NVidia/3DFx

Y2A · 03-11-2001, 09:31 | posts: 564

Check out The Poll!

Hilbert Hagedoorn · 03-11-2001, 17:49 | posts: 17,239 | Location: Guru3D testlab

And you post such a poll in the ATi forum huh ? <IMG SRC="smileys/puke.gif">

Y2A · 03-11-2001, 18:44 | posts: 564

Was planning to post in every forum, but it was late and i was tired <IMG SRC="smileys/sticktongue.gif">.

03-21-2001, 19:13 | posts: n/a

<IMG SRC="smileys/evil.gif"> 
 
Okay. Listen up. Hahaha Radoen outperfomred the Nividia, and honestly that it such has a nice niffy features such as the 4 time skinning matrix etc. 
I would not dare to buy Nivida because it has very little features on it and overclocked really bad and its choking bandwidth of memory. However the release version of geforce 3 released with 3dfx may be the king, but I am warning you guys ATI is just about to release the radeon Ultra MAXX which claims to outperform Geforce 3. But before that the Radoen was the king of this 3D world. Please DUFUS. Listen to me never underestimate the grpahic power of Radeon. Stupid incarnated bastard out there who dares to challanges Radeon's performance. Sorry for cussing, but hey that life. 
I will notice that Radeon done a very well job out there for intance, that Nivida does not have Gloss map, water effect, and the emboss dot map. Other does nivida has yes. 
For your information. Older games will not be as great in radeon grphic cards, however, because of rendering texture piplines that radeon hads. If there were a game design for it then Radeon will be the top notch. 
 
Thanks, 
Jon Bock.

04-04-2001, 04:09 | posts: n/a

Well, thirs of all ati has to worry about not becoming next 3dfx, as it's still sufering from low sales, while nvidia keeps on riding that wave. Second as a chipset radeon is not all that good. In fact one might say it's a good chipset if there were space for one more generation of gpu's between gf2 and gf3 gen. That is basically where radeon belongs. Unfortunately there's no such space, so radeon suffers from many drawbacks, such as low 16 bit speed, almost no support for new features from games (radeon has partial for most dx8.0 functions. Howether will somebody be tweaking their software to support ati's partial compatibility is a BIG question). And that much argued 3rd texture pipeline is looking king of weird (why would someone make soft for uneven number of pipelines? it's so much easier to jum straigh to gf3's 4 pipelines, leaving radeon to still having to make 2 passes just like gf2 cards, to render the whole scene). In other words, everything is up to programmers now. If they will optimize their soft for radeon, it will rule. Otherwise it'll never be able to use it's full potential. And why would programmers optimize their code for a chipset that doesn't sale well? So in the en, it's not the question of power of radeon vs gf2 ,it's the matter of how much can radeon sale NOW, so the programmers will optimize their code LATER. 
 
And although I'm an nvidia user, I wish radeon a bright future, and am waiting for radeon 2 with impatience. Ati is the only serious competition for nvidia in 3d market at the moment, and monopoly is never good for us customers.

Ice Cold · 05-25-2001, 13:59 | posts: 6,371 | Location: belgium

you forgot PowerVR & Quantum3D..they use 3Dfx Technology,but they developed it further

Dave · 05-25-2001, 14:25 | posts: 8,447 | Location: Lost in boxes

Thats a good question, I have just bought a gf3. What will happen in a few years?