View Full Version : Mohaa
If any of you people play this on multiplayer you can find me there as well. My gamertag is Ramrod.....of course:D
Any other mohaa players here?
Ive been intending to buy this game since it came out :(..
I actually bought the game, But it wouldnt run due to my 8mb G Card :p.. So, I took it back. Ive not got a 32mb Ge Force 2, Pretty Restricted, as I dont have a AGP slot, So I might go and buy it.
Funny thing is, DF2 Played very nice on my 8mb onboard, but there isnt ANY improvement, If anything there's a noticable degradtion in performace using the Ge Force.
Originally posted by Steve_NTL
Ive been intending to buy this game since it came out :(..
I actually bought the game, But it wouldnt run due to my 8mb G Card :p.. So, I took it back. Ive not got a 32mb Ge Force 2, Pretty Restricted, as I dont have a AGP slot, So I might go and buy it.
Funny thing is, DF2 Played very nice on my 8mb onboard, but there isnt ANY improvement, If anything there's a noticable degradtion in performace using the Ge Force.
8mb?!:eek: I haven't run a card like that since 1998:D
However, do try to run mohaa (somehow) as it is a great game and very good online.
Hopefully Starting to build a new computer in the coming weeks, gonna buy the parts bit by bit, and *ahem* sell my comp to my brothers (My Old one) :p
Originally posted by Andre
Im just looking at a new graphics card, but am unsure what to get. :(
Have just found an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro on Dabs.com for £214.00 delivered, and I think I will have to give in and click the buy button! :eek:
I'm holding out for the imminent arrival of the nvidia fx5900. Of course my cpu and ram speed will probably be the bottleneck then. I will also have to persuade my wife that a £400 gpu is a good thing.
Seriously though, I will probably wait till it comes down in price (a bit):D
Originally posted by Steve_NTL
Hopefully Starting to build a new computer in the coming weeks, gonna buy the parts bit by bit, and *ahem* sell my comp to my brothers (My Old one) :p
Why build when you can buy so cheap these days?
Originally posted by Ramrod
Why build when you can buy so cheap these days?
I would have to agree with Ramrod, there are so many great deals out at the moment, you just have to shop around for the one that suits you.
Do a quick tally of the parts you want and prices ( if you were to build )
Now price up the same spec bought system, and if I were a betting man I would say that there was nothing in it, IMHO, or possibly the bought system would be cheaper, don't forget to include the o\s in your reckoning.
matty4donna
08-07-2003, 08:20
Originally posted by Ramrod
Why build when you can buy so cheap these days? Id rather build personally as i know then that i am putting the top components into my systems, not cheap crap. For instance, all my main systems have ultra fast RAM and always use the top of the range motherboards from makes like Asus, Gigabyte and MSI. I then proceed to finding the fastest HDD's etc...
The computers you buy in shops are cheap as they use the lowest spec/cheapest components the manufacturers can find. I mean you can still buy computers without an AGP slot nowadays :rolleyes:
Sop buying computers in the shops may seem simple, but for people with the need for speed they are pretty crap most of the time.
I myself am a computer engineer so its something i do day in day out and i enjoy building them. You can still save yourself a fair bit of cash even now by building rather then buying!:)
I have to agree with the build it yourself brigade here. I mean you may be able to buy the same spec PC at the same price you could build but the same spec does not mean the same hardware.
What I mean is 512MB of RAM is not all the same, one in a ready made system would be PC2100 at most, but if you build it yourself you can have what you want.
As already mentioned, it's the same with sounds cards, on a ready built system it may have the same spec ie 5.1 surround sound but it would be built into the mobo, build it yourself and you can have a real sound card.
Go with the plan you had mate and build it yourself.:)
I agree (matty & imback) but when I tried to source the best components (from online retailers), for my dream machine, I still came up with a price that was hundreds more than buying a very similar/same spec machine from places like mesh.
Maby you guys have access to cheaper components than I do.
Tottaly agree with matty4donna's Post.. Ive also got majority of the stuff needed, IE - Hardisk, Moniter, Keyboard, Mouse.. Windows XP :rolleyes:...
Plus, Most of the pre built machines look good when your looking at the spec, But the builders get away with the bare minimum. Looking at around 360 for All the parts I need, Then the rest Ive got.
Originally posted by bopdude
Do a quick tally of the parts you want and prices ( if you were to build )
Now price up the same spec bought system, and if I were a betting man I would say that there was nothing in it, IMHO, or possibly the bought system would be cheaper, don't forget to include the o\s in your reckoning.
The big companies can buy the bits in bulk and get far better prices per component than the man in the street.
Originally posted by Steve_NTL
Looking at around 360 for All the parts I need, Then the rest Ive got.
The £360 would just about cover the gpu price in my case:D
timewarrior2001
08-07-2003, 10:14
look at companies like Ebuyer, they are so damn cheap for some things. I have had loads of hassle with sub standard ram and motherboards form them, all because I tried to save a few quid.
I persuaded my mate to buy an emachines P4 2.4ghz with 256Mb ram and GF4 gfx, cdwriter dvddrive etc from PC world. It cost £899 approx 4 months ago.
Turns out that the ram is SDRAM and its a GF4 MX440 with 64Mb ram (dont know if this is DDR either).
The machine runs about the same speed as my Duron 1ghz with 512Mb 2100 DDR.
It goes to show you that yes 256mb ram is 256Mb ram, but it may not be top or even mid range ram. GF4 is GF4 but the GF4mx440 is probably not as good as a GF3 Ti.
Ok so buying a machine can get you some extras, but is MS works really that essential, do you need a printer that you can buy for £30 anyway and have to pay more for each cartridge it uses?
I have to admit, that I couldnt live without my national lottery software I had bundled with my P75 back in Jan 96. :rolleyes:
darkangel
08-07-2003, 13:23
Originally posted by Ramrod
If any of you people play this on multiplayer you can find me there as well. My gamertag is Ramrod.....of course:D
Any other mohaa players here? played it since it came out, been in a couple of clans but as with hl it's been spoiled by cheats don't play it now unless the server has an anti-cheat client installed, is anybody thought of starting nthw clan/s yet?
edit:-got spearhead too
SMHarman
08-07-2003, 13:32
Originally posted by matty4donna
Id rather build personally as i know then that i am putting the top components into my systems, not cheap crap. For instance, all my main systems have ultra fast RAM and always use the top of the range motherboards from makes like Asus, Gigabyte and MSI. I then proceed to finding the fastest HDD's etc...
The computers you buy in shops are cheap as they use the lowest spec/cheapest components the manufacturers can find. I mean you can still buy computers without an AGP slot nowadays :rolleyes:
Sop buying computers in the shops may seem simple, but for people with the need for speed they are pretty crap most of the time.
I myself am a computer engineer so its something i do day in day out and i enjoy building them. You can still save yourself a fair bit of cash even now by building rather then buying!:)
Put your spec together and email Simon.
sales@selectcomputers.co.uk
Just got mine from there, could not see the cost difference between buy and build yourself. You can pretty much give him any spec you want.
Found the co on ebay, you can see there the high feedback.
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (2.0GHz, 266MHz fsb) Processor
1024MB PC2700 DDR333 Branded Memory (2 x 512MB)
AMD Approved Heavy Duty Heatsink & Cooling Fan
Asus A7V333R ATX 200/266 fsb Raid Motherboard (this got upgraded in the final spec as they discontinued this one)
80GB EIDE (7200RPM) SerialATA150 HDD
80GB EIDE (7200RPM) SerialATA150 HDD
52x 24x 52x EIDE †˜Burn-Proofââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ CDRW with Nero Software
16x 48x EIDE DVD-ROM Drive with PowerDVD Software
ATI Radeon 9000 64MB DDR 4x AGP SVGA Card with TV Out
56K Ambient PCI Intel Chipset Fax/Data Hardware Modem
10/100 RJ45 PCI Network Card
1.44MB Floppy Disk Drive
Codegen 6049 4-Bay ATX Tower Case with 450W Power Supply
MS Windows XP Home (Installed, Configured & Supplied)
£725.00
SMHarman
08-07-2003, 13:35
Originally posted by Andre
Im just looking at a new graphics card, but am unsure what to get. :(
Have just found an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro on Dabs.com for £214.00 delivered, and I think I will have to give in and click the buy button! :eek:
Why do you need that today? I've just got a new PC with the 9000 card in it runs QuakeII and C&C Generals at full performance (well my monitor won't let me go above 1158x).
I figure in 12-18 months when games are making use of the 9700 cards power I can buy it for about £100 max.
What game would you want that needs this card?
SMHarman
08-07-2003, 14:21
Originally posted by Andre
1) Enter The Matrix.
Video Card: 64 MB 3D Video Card
Originally posted by Andre
2) GTA:Vice City.
64(+) MB video card with DirectX 9.0 compatible drivers ("GeForce 3" / "Radeon 8500" or better with DirectX Texture Compression support)
Originally posted by Andre
3) Half Life 2 (September)
Direct 6.0 or higher compatible graphics card
This information is based on specifications supplied by manufacturers and should be used for guidance only.
Originally posted by Andre
4) Doom III (2003 Hopefully)
No Information
Originally posted by Andre
5) Colin Macrae 3.
Graphics Cards-
ATI Technologies - Radeon 8500, 9000, 9500, 9700
Matrox - Parhelia
Nvidia - GeForce 256, GeForce 2/3/4, nForce 1/2
SIS - Xabre 400
Originally posted by Andre
6) MS Flight Sim 2004.
Video card: 8 MB/3D with DirectX 7.0 or later drivers
All recommended specs per Play.com
None actually need that performance and all look like they would play hapily with the card in my PC. In fact I could buy all these games and the card in my PC and still have change for a 9700/9800 in about 12 months time.
TigaSefi
08-07-2003, 14:41
Exactly, get the best card u can get if u want really good gaming experience :)
SMHarman
08-07-2003, 15:02
Originally posted by Andre
I have a 64 MB GeForce 2 Ultra, running the latest NVIDIA drivers.
Running these games at a high resolution is just not pleasant as as soon it gets busy 'on screen' the games slow down, which is not what what I want.
I have a decent spec PC, and I want to play games at a decent frame rate, & a decent resolution (as the options allow)
Using the cards you have quoted above would not give me the desired effect.
The cards I quoted are supposed recommended specs. I would also recommend going to a higher spec than that. I just feel that at the moment the 9600 to 9800 are overpriced for the performence increment over the 9000 to 9200 range and that the 9000 - 9200 range will give more than adequate performance on those games. These are the Porsche of gaming cards and in normal use you will not ever be able to run the Porsche with your foot on the floor, or even well depressed into the carpet.
Having not played them all I don't know if they would struggle. I personally plan to buy one of the higher spec cards once I notice slowing on my card. By that point the price should have dropped considerably.
It is the same with processors. The fastest processor out is normally 200Mhz faster but 25+% more expensive. It just does not add up.
darkangel
08-07-2003, 18:04
Originally posted by SMHarman
The cards I quoted are supposed recommended specs. I would also recommend going to a higher spec than that. I just feel that at the moment the 9600 to 9800 are overpriced for the performence increment over the 9000 to 9200 range and that the 9000 - 9200 range will give more than adequate performance on those games. These are the Porsche of gaming cards and in normal use you will not ever be able to run the Porsche with your foot on the floor, or even well depressed into the carpet.
Having not played them all I don't know if they would struggle. I personally plan to buy one of the higher spec cards once I notice slowing on my card. By that point the price should have dropped considerably.
It is the same with processors. The fastest processor out is normally 200Mhz faster but 25+% more expensive. It just does not add up. it's not just speed with ur card the latest games and even older ones to a lesser extent will just no look as the where designed to, the higher end card will also have higher frame rates I'm sure u will notice your card does stutter on some newer games, in the end if you've got the cash to spare for some people 20-30% speed increase may be enough to justify the cost
matty4donna
08-07-2003, 18:15
Originally posted by Andre
I have a 64 MB GeForce 2 Ultra, running the latest NVIDIA drivers.
Running these games at a high resolution is just not pleasant as as soon it gets busy 'on screen' the games slow down, which is not what what I want.
I have a decent spec PC, and I want to play games at a decent frame rate, & a decent resolution (as the options allow)
Using the cards you have quoted above would not give me the desired effect. And at the time the GeForce2Ultra was released, it was a total beast!
I have to agree with Andre, always get the best graphics card you can afford. It can make a huge difference when you are running a nice GFFX 5600, 5800 or 5900 or Radeon 9500, 9600, 9700 or 9800 and getting 60 - 70 FPS on the latest games at 1024x768 with 4x AA on and then trying to run the same game on lower cards with that detail only to find your maxxing out at around 20 FPS. ;)
I myeslf have a 128mb GFFX 5800Ultra and despite the low memory bandwidth it runs all current games fine :)
Andre don't know if this site might help they are my computer people and have been very good to us. http://www.powerc.co.uk
Originally posted by albone
Andre don't know if this site might help they are my computer people and have been very good to us. http://www.powerc.co.uk
No-one there at the moment.....:(
sorry about that seems to be playing up will try and see if I can get the site for you and repost if it works.:confused:
Ah my fault it should be:http://www.powerc.com
matty4donna
08-07-2003, 20:24
Andre, what card is it? Post the link please as my mate is deffo interested at that price!
darkangel
08-07-2003, 20:39
it'll be a generic for that price
matty4donna
08-07-2003, 20:47
tar, i was hoping it would'nt be a dabsvalue but i could'nt find it!
Hehehehe i give hime 15 minutes before he's ordered it that price is quite outstanding :)
Thanks ;)
Originally posted by albone
sorry about that seems to be playing up will try and see if I can get the site for you and repost if it works.:confused:
Ah my fault it should be:http://www.powerc.com
£452 for the ge force fx5900 256mb....my wife will never allow it:cry:
*edit*
Got it down to £402 (on dabs) My wife said:"your not buying it" (and there was some finger pointing involved:erm: ) "But its a saving of fifty quid" (I said).....*no answer*:D
........watch this space:D
matty4donna
08-07-2003, 22:06
Originally posted by Ramrod
£452 for the ge force fx5900 256mb....my wife will never allow it:cry: £390 @ Ebuyer.com although really you only need the 128mb version for the next few months at least. ;)
Originally posted by matty4donna
£390... .she laughed
although really you only need the 128mb version for the next few months at least. ;) The next few months? Don't make me laugh. "I feel the need ....the need for speed":D
*off to check out ebuyer*
*edit*can't find the 256mb version there:(
matty4donna
11-07-2003, 08:51
Its Here (http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=49257) but its gone up in price by £5 :(
Lord Nikon
11-07-2003, 08:59
I would always choose NVidia cards over ATi
ATi cards have issues with their drivers and OpenGL
True so do NVidia when you use XP Default drivers, however when you throw the NVidia drivers on they run MUCH better.
Plus there is the Flat Panel Calibration Screen they can display for monitor setup
matty4donna
11-07-2003, 09:04
Until recently ATi cards had the advantage of the good peformance = price ratio but i would not say they have now as nVidia have really got their act together after their little nV30 pantomime performance. The Radeon 9700Pro at only £200 is a must for anyone wanting to spend around that price though! ;)
Originally posted by matty4donna
Its Here (http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=49257) but its gone up in price by £5 :(
Ta m8:)
I got my Gigabyte 9700 Pro from http://www.addonsonline.co.uk for £208 about a month ago, free delivery. A steal at that price, get them in now cos they're about to be discontinued. Got a bunch of "old" games too thrown in.
As for not needing it, yeah, you can get by no problems with a GF3, or lesser card, but if you want to be playing the games with all image quality turned up, and high res, you need the hardware to do it.
Also, if you're willing to spend the ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£ÃƒÆ ’‚£'s to buy a card like the 128Mb 5900U, spend the extra and get the 256Mb version. UT2k3 can take good advantage of 256Mb, and it's also pretty helpful with IQ things like AA. You don't want to spend all that money either to find out HL2 (which is meant to be scalable beyond todays hardware) can use what you could have got for a few quid more, IMO.
And OT ;) MoHAA was/is a great game, but for all the cheats in it. Find a decent clan server with anti cheat on it and you won't have many problems. I still play just AA, cos our clan didn't like Spearhead (EA ruined it). Check out Call of Duty for another upcoming WW2 shooter which looks like it will blow MoH out of the water (made by the same guys who got sacked after selling MoH:AA to EA..)
matty4donna
11-07-2003, 13:59
There not going to be discontinued, they are the £230 price range card otherwise known as the mid - high price range. The 9600 is too much cheaper then the 9700 and the 9800 is too much dearer then the 9700 for them to stop it. Believe me cos i know something about it (i have closely studied the graphics card industry for 4 years). The only reason why the 9500 was discontinued was because it was in the 9600 price range and was dear for ATi to make as it had the R300 VPU (9700 VPU) but only addrsssing the RAM via a 128bit BUS and also it was faster then the 9600, which is not good for business. ;)
9700 Pro is being discontinued, it's being replaced by the 9800 Pro. 9700 is being replaced by the 9800.
Retailer link (http://www.microstorm.com/hardware/partinfo-id-480650.html)
ATI website link (http://mirror.ati.com/buy/pricespcusa.html)
There's a bunch of other retail links showing this product is already being discontinued, I only included this one for example. If you go to the ATi one, you will see they offer the 9700 Pro as an existing PC Product, and is marked EOL** - End of Life/Discontinued.
This again is not good for business as it costs ATi about the same to produce a 9800 as it does a 9700.
Originally posted by deejaya
MoHAA was/is a great game, but for all the cheats in it. Find a decent clan server with anti cheat on it and you won't have many problems. Yup, I use theCheat Police recommended files only.
matty4donna
11-07-2003, 14:55
we'll see if the 9700 is still available in a month then hey cos it only took the 9500 1 month (in fact it was less then) to dissappear from retailers/suppliers :)
matty4donna
16-07-2003, 18:42
Originally posted by Ramrod
....she laughed
The next few months? Don't make me laugh. "I feel the need ....the need for speed":D
*off to check out ebuyer*
*edit*can't find the 256mb version there:( How about this Leadtek card (http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=50595), much better make and what you want for just £365inc l VAT! :)
Originally posted by matty4donna
How about this Leadtek card (http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=50595), much better make and what you want for just £365inc l VAT! :)
Cheers mate:)
I'vr just told my wife that I will shortly be upgrading to a 2600xp athlon(as soon as I can track the right bloody one down) and then getting one of those leadtek 'bad boys' as well.
...so there:D
....I am still alive to type this :cool: :D
matty4donna
16-07-2003, 23:39
Originally posted by Ramrod
Cheers mate:)
I'vr just told my wife that I will shortly be upgrading to a 2600xp athlon(as soon as I can track the right bloody one down) and then getting one of those leadtek 'bad boys' as well.
...so there:D
....I am still alive to type this :cool: :D lol np, your wife knows it makes sense :D
Originally posted by matty4donna
lol np, your wife knows it makes sense :D
Unfortunately not. I said: 'The graphics card is about £400 but I'm gonna wait till it comes down a bit' she said: 'What, like to £50?'
I said: 'NO, like £350':r olleyes: :D
Originally posted by matty4donna
How about this Leadtek card (http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=50595), much better make and what you want for just £365inc l VAT! :)
If it is a better card, in what way is it better and why is it cheaper?:confused:
matty4donna
19-07-2003, 11:33
Don't know about why it cheaper, could just be ebuyer have a deal going with Leadtek, they have a lot of Leadtek cards for fairly cheap!
Leadtek are one of the superior makes of graphics cards. If its a case of stick to what you do best, id choose Asus for motherboards, Leadtek for graphics and Creative for general home sound cards (not graphics lol).
I'd choose Leadtek for Nvidia boards, Sapphire for ATI boards, and having tried out an FX5900 finally, you're better off getting hold of a Radeon 9800 Pro. £278 from Scan.
Originally posted by SMHarman
None actually need that performance
Most of these games "need" that performance to play as the game developers intended, anyone that thinks that a budget low spec video card (regardless of what version of DX it supports) is going to see them through playing modern games at any decent kind of resolution/LOD needs their head seeing to. Maybe someone with a Geforce 4 MX/low end Geforce FX/Radeon 9000 could run some benchmarks in UT2003 at 1600 x 1200, 6 x FSAA and 16x Anisotropic filtering and let us know what their average FPS is (3d Mark results with these settings, or however high these settings will go on your card would be even better, so long as it's 3d Mark 03 not 2001se)
matty4donna
19-07-2003, 14:03
3dMark03 is not really a good benchmark for gaming as it does not reflect real life games. The DirectX 7 test in it (the combat plane test) is nothing like what would have been used in DX7 era - there simply is too many polygons. 3dMark2001SE Build 330 is much better, even if it is only DX8.1
However i understand and agree with you point that games do need high performance cards to play as the developers intended. However its not always true that going for the biggest and dearest spec is best. (I can still remember the Voodoo5 6000 scenario, reminds me much of the nV30 fiasco!)
I have been extremely interested in the home video card industry since the era of 3dfx began back in 1995/96 and i know what im talking about hehe. :)
I've been "interested" in video card technology since I had a 256K Trident ISA video card in my first 386, if you knew your onions then you'd know that 3d Mark 2001 is heavily dependant on your processor speed in comparison to 3d Mark 03, it's a well documented fact, look it up.
edit: you might have also noticed I mentioned UT2003 benchmarks first.
Originally posted by Bifta
and having tried out an FX5900 finally, you're better off getting hold of a Radeon 9800 Pro. What makes you say that?
Originally posted by matty4donna
Leadtek are one of the superior makes of graphics cards. If What exactly makes them superior?
Originally posted by Ramrod
What makes you say that?
Fraps results in many, many, MANY games.
Originally posted by Ramrod
What exactly makes them superior?
Leadtek generally install better quality hardware components e.g. memory chips on their cards they offer superior and quieter cooling systems and normally supply a top notch software bundle. I'm going back a few years to when I bought one of my first Ti4600's, the one manufactured by Leadtek was far better than the PNY crap I purchased before it
Originally posted by Bifta
Fraps results in many, many, MANY games. Your information has been noted.:)
Leadtek generally install better quality hardware components e.g. memory chips on their cards they offer superior and quieter cooling systems and normally supply a top notch software bundle. I'm going back a few years to when I bought one of my first Ti4600's, the one manufactured by Leadtek was far better than the PNY crap I purchased before it
and yours....:)
Heh .. they were both from me :p
matty4donna
19-07-2003, 15:36
Originally posted by Bifta
I've been "interested" in video card technology since I had a 256K Trident ISA video card in my first 386, if you knew your onions then you'd know that 3d Mark 2001 is heavily dependant on your processor speed in comparison to 3d Mark 03, it's a well documented fact, look it up.
edit: you might have also noticed I mentioned UT2003 benchmarks first. Well lets put it another way I spent approx 8 hours a day for close on 6 months researching and documenting the graphics industry as part of an IT course. ;) As well as the fact i was hardcore gamer/overclocker for 5 years and although i dont play so many games right now, i am still extremely interested in the 3d market like a hobyy if you will! Ask me anything about 3dfx and i will probably be able to answer you all the way from the origins of the company right the way through to the infamous Rampage 3000 (never heard of it huh? :D )
And you can hardly call your trident 256k video adapter a graphics accelerator. ;)
Lol, 3dMark2001SE is not heavily based on the CPU, yes it has CPU tests in it, but i can assure you (from benchmarking myself) that to obtain a decent mark in 3dmark 2001 you need the GPU. eg. A GeForce2 would get around 2500, a GeForce4mx would get around 7000, a GeForce3 would get around 9000, a GeForce4ti would get around 11,000 and a Radeon 9700Pro would get around 13,500 all on the same system. Now tell me the CPU makes more difference then the GPU :rolleyes: :D
No offense, but you're talking crap, anyone who knows anything about benchmarking 3d cards knows how processor intensive 3dm2001se is compared to 3d mark 03 :) As I recall the rampage never made it to market as it was stopgapped by the Voodoo 3, and as for your benchmark "quotes", they're lacking somewhat, a geforce 2 get's 2500? firstly you never bothered to mention what model of Geforce 2, could it be an MX, a GTS, a Pro or a Ti (though the later GTS cores were basically Ti's anyway), a Geforce 2 Ti with an Athlon XP 1800 can get over 6000 3d marks. Moving on to Geforce 3's, again you fail to mention the different versions, were you talking about a ti200, a plain Geforce 3 or a Geforce 3 ti 500? All have differing 3d mark scores, you've again missed the point on Geforce 4's, I'm sure I don't need to remind you that there are 3 version of the Geforce 4 Ti, all with differing core and memory speeds, all offering different 3d mark scores. And yes, with 3d mark 2001 the CPU will make a VAST difference, let me give you an example, a while back, 3d mark 2001se with a Radeon 9700 pro (Cat. 3.1, Gigabyte Via KT400 board with 512mb PC2100 and the latest chipset drivers) gave me just over 11000 3d marks with an Athlon XP 1800, 3d mark 03 (at the time) gave me 4500, after upgrading to an Athlon xp 2400, 3d mark 03 stuck at around 4500, maybe 10 or so 3d marks improvement, 3d mark 2001se upped to nearly 12,700, so, my point still stands, 3d mark 2001se is still far more processor dependant than 3d mark 03, which makes 3d mark 03 a far better GPU benchmark.
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
I would always choose NVidia cards over ATi
ATi cards have issues with their drivers and OpenGL
What 'issues' with open GL do you know about with the current Catalyst 3.6's?
Originally posted by Bifta
Heh .. they were both from me :p Senility strikes some of us early:blush:
OK matty & bifta, you both know a lot about gpu's :D
now........which should I get, the fx5900ultra or the radeon 9800pro?, or is there something on the horizon that I should wait for?
......and no fighting ladies :nono: :D
Personally I think you should buy an Atividia Radforce Super Cock Cinema FX 5 Billion! It'll be useless in 6 months, you'll have to remortgage your house to buy one and you'll need a fan the size of a gas turbine to keep it cool but hey, that's technology for you.
Ramrod, there's always going to be "something" on the horizon, personally having tried and benchmarked both cards using games like UT2003 and benchmarks like 3d mark 03 and Code Creatures etc I'd plump for the 9800 pro, it outperforms the 5900 in most cases and is a whack cheaper.
edit: or just wait for the next incarnation of the Xbox which I'm led to believe uses ATI technology, it'll still be cheaper than buying a new video card.
matty4donna
19-07-2003, 17:16
Originally posted by Bifta
No offense, but you're talking crap, anyone who knows anything about benchmarking 3d cards knows how processor intensive 3dm2001se is compared to 3d mark 03
Hahahahah stop making me laugh mate!
As I recall the rampage never made it to market as it was stopgapped by the Voodoo 3
You just proved how little you know mate :D
, and as for your benchmark "quotes", they're lacking somewhat, a geforce 2 get's 2500? firstly you never bothered to mention what model of Geforce 2, could it be an MX, a GTS, a Pro or a Ti (though the later GTS cores were basically Ti's anyway), a Geforce 2 Ti with an Athlon XP 1800 can get over 6000 3d marks.
Oh it can without overlclocking can it? I seem to remember a GeForce2Ultra struggled to reach 6000 mate.
Moving on to Geforce 3's, again you fail to mention the different versions, were you talking about a ti200, a plain Geforce 3 or a Geforce 3 ti 500?
Does it matter mate? The difference between the GeForce3ti200 and the GeForce3ti500 is negligable.
All have differing 3d mark scores, you've again missed the point on Geforce 4's, I'm sure I don't need to remind you that there are 3 version of the Geforce 4 Ti, all with differing core and memory speeds, all offering different 3d mark scores.
Yes there are (wow you actually know something) but hey do you know what approx means? If you really want the detail ill give it you but you will be bored half way through it :rolleyes:
And yes, with 3d mark 2001 the CPU will make a VAST difference, let me give you an example, a while back, 3d mark 2001se with a Radeon 9700 pro (Cat. 3.1, Gigabyte Via KT400 board with 512mb PC2100 and the latest chipset drivers) gave me just over 11000 3d marks with an Athlon XP 1800, 3d mark 03 (at the time) gave me 4500, after upgrading to an Athlon xp 2400, 3d mark 03 stuck at around 4500, maybe 10 or so 3d marks improvement, 3d mark 2001se upped to nearly 12,700, so, my point still stands, 3d mark 2001se is still far more processor dependant than 3d mark 03, which makes 3d mark 03 a far better GPU benchmark.
wotever you say mate, you think your a big boy because you use 3dMark03? Well understand this - 3dMark benchmarks are synthetic benchmarks anyway and DO NOT reflect REAL life performance. Secondly 3dMark03 is currently the industry standard **** take.
You stick with your 256k ISA tridents mate, take a tip from me, dont give up your day job, your no good in the comp business. I still cant stop laughing at your RamPage theory hahahahaha :D :D :D :D :D :D
EDIT: Just for reference theres the fastest 3dMatk2001 benchmark GeForce2 Ultra alongside an AMD ATHLON 1800+ (1.53Ghz) with a score of 6000? No! A score of 5927. And obviously the GeForce2Ultra is heavily overclocked. So much for it being easy for a GeForce2 to reach 6000 (the Ultra was the grand-daddy of the GeForce2 series by the way).
matty4donna
19-07-2003, 17:25
Originally posted by Bifta
Ramrod, there's always going to be "something" on the horizon.
edit: or just wait for the next incarnation of the Xbox which I'm led to believe uses ATI technology, it'll still be cheaper than buying a new video card.
I agree with you there mate, its hard when buying anything with computer nowadays to stay up to date for long.
Well so far it looks like ATi have the Xbox2 deal but we all know what nVidia are like lol!
Coming from someone who claims to be a "computer engineer" (how is that job in PC world going?), you really do talk a lot of crap, I sincerely hope no-one in their right mind would actually bring a machine to you for an upgrade, if you too ignorant to actually accept the fact's I'm telling you which are widely publicised then maybe you should start looking for a different job, and fyi, there's more than 1 theory on the 'rampage' card, try doing a little bit of research, 1 theory is exactly what I've told you, and the other BS theory is that ex 3dfx staff were planning to release it after 3dfx were bought out by Nvidia. And if your bullsh*t phrase about 3d mark 03 is to be believed maybe you should tell all the trusted review and benchmark sites to stop using it, I'm sure HardOCP, techspot, Guru3d, sharky extreme, beyond 3d, tweaktown, Hexus, Extremetech and countless other sites will consider themselves well informed by you that they're talking out of their ass.
God bless 3dfx and their dinner table sized video cards, it's no wonder they ended up being bought out and shut down.
Originally posted by Bifta
[B]Ramrod, there's always going to be "something" on the horizon, I know that, but I am wondering if there is something imminent that will totally blow those two away, or are they going to be top of the heap for a while(especially considering that the 9800 seems to have been out for a while)-how long has it been out? personally having tried and benchmarked both cards using games like UT2003 and benchmarks like 3d mark 03 and Code Creatures etc I'd plump for the 9800 pro, it outperforms the 5900 in most cases and is a whack cheaper. It really is that much better even though it has been out longer? And if so, why is that the case?
matty4donna
19-07-2003, 18:02
The RamPage was nothing to do with Voodoo architecture AT ALL! Yes Nil Zero Nout Nothing.
The RamPage started development in 1998 and was set for release early 2001. It was to replace the Voodoo line of graphics processors as 3dfx realised there was only so far they could expand the original Voodoo architecture. It was nothing to do with the Voodoo5 6000 either, this was merely a Voodoo5 but you would never have guessed it. :rolleyes:
Anyway, 3dfx had set targets for its release in 1Q 2001 (but they never made it that far). Then 3dfx bought Gigapixel which kind of halted development. Then they lost the Dreamcast deal after a vicious court row with Sega. They did not get the Xbox deal. And to add to all this, the Voodoo5, made in Juarez, Mexico (a plant they had built after they bought STB) was running behind schedule and they were not produciong enough VSA-100 GPU's. Due to the high estimated cost of the Voodoo5 6000 (estimated at around $599) they cancelled that and concentrated their resources on the Voodoo4 (VSA-100 but without SLI) and the Voodoo5 5500 (the 5000 was only released in small quantities as it contained only 32mb RAM which due to the way SLI works, addressed as 16mb RAM). The Voodoo4 was a faliure (the 4000 never made it due to problems and the 4500 was simply not powerful enough). Whilst the Voodoo5 5500 did alright sales wise especially with its PCI varient, it was never meant to compete directly with the GeForce2 and instead it was designed to compete with the GeForce256, which meant it was not as powerful as the industry expected and due to its high price, it was slated by just about every major source in the industry.
3dfx through all these troubles had been solwly but surely developing the replacement for the Voodoo series, the RamPage. Towards the end of 2000, it was leaked that it was to be released in 3 varients. The RamPage 1000 for the average user, the RamPage 2000 for the performance user and the RamPage 3000 for workstation user. It featured from 2 RamPage GPU's running in SLI mode and for every 2 GPU's it also featured 1 T'n'L unit. The Rampage 1000 featured 2 RamPage GPU's and 1 T'n'L unit. It also featured upto 128mb DDR SDRAM which could run at upto 600Mhz. On top of all this it had a 400Mhz RAMDAC and its effective memory bandwidth was around 7.4GB/s.
The RamPage 2000 featured 4 RamPage GPU's and 2 T'n'L units, upto 256mb DDR SDRAM, a 400Mhz RAMDAC and had an effective memory bandwidth of around 14.8GB/s.
We won't go into the RamPage 3000 as it would never have been released for the consumer market anyway. Some of thos numbers may sound small now, but they were not small in 2000. Unfortunatly, all the crap that was going on in the company itself since the purchase of the Gigapixel corporation in 1999 and the late release/faliure of the VSA-100 series of graphics cards caused the company to report massive financial losses in November 2000. 3dfx held many meetings and on Friday 15th December 2000, they announced that they were to sell all branding and technologies to nVidia, however they were to keep the Juarez production plant and all their staff. Why did nVidia not release the RamPage? Because at the time they were concentrating on the nV20 (GeForce3) and did not have the time or the man power to incorporate any of the 3dfx technologies until the release of the nV30 2 years later. What happened to the Voodoo5 6000 i hear you asking??? Well Quantum3D bought the SLI technologies off 3dfx just prior to them selling to nVidia. They are now selling their AAlchemy series based on the VSA-100 GPU with upto 32 processors addressing upto 3GB RAM. Obviously these are only for workstations ;)
How have i learnt much of my vast knowledge? Well number 1 would probably just be by being in the business myself, reading such websites as THG, HOCP etc...
But i know a lot more in depth info because i was a member of X3dfX in which i got to know many former 3dfx engineers, many of whom were based in Northern Ireland.
So before you try telling me again that the RamPage was something to do with the Voodoo3 please think about what your saying. Oh and no i dont work in PC World, i dont even live that close to one. And it was not a scabby course it was part of a course i did the work for. Come back next time when you can at least explain the RamPage theory to me.
No hard feelings mate ;)
matty4donna
19-07-2003, 18:04
Originally posted by Bifta
God bless 3dfx and their dinner table sized video cards, it's no wonder they ended up being bought out and shut down. BTW, that aint a RamPage, in fact its probably a prototype of a Voodoo4 from early 1999 based on a Voodoo5 circuit board. ;)
Ive uploaded a very rare pic of a RamPage prototype - http://www.ukpcnet.co.uk/RamPage.htm ;)
Originally posted by Bifta
I'd choose Leadtek for Nvidia boards, Sapphire for ATI boards, and having tried out an FX5900 finally, you're better off getting hold of a Radeon 9800 Pro. £278 from Scan. btw.... I have an asus a7v266-e mobo, geforce or radeon gpu for it, or does it not matter?
Originally posted by matty4donna
BTW, that aint a RamPage, in fact its probably a prototype of a Voodoo4 from early 1999 based on a Voodoo5 circuit board. ;)
Ive uploaded a very rare pic of a RamPage prototype - http://www.ukpcnet.co.uk/RamPage.htm ;)
holy cow:eek: a) How does that fit into a case? Do you have to cut a slot in the front for it to stick out of?
b) Does it take off when the fans are running?:D
matty4donna
19-07-2003, 18:39
Id personally go for the GeForceFX 5900Ultra, it is clearly the current market leader and nVidia have finally caught up with their drivers again. The DetFX are amazing.
However, i am still fond of the Radeon series and highly recommend the Radeon 9800Pro although rumor has it that in a few weeks the 9900Pro (R460 possibly) will be released to compete with the 5900 Ultra. I think it is safe to say that the 5900Ultra won't get replace until around October/November as nVidia do not plan to release the nV40 till around Q4 2003. The only reason the nV35 was released just two months after the nV30 was more because the nV30 was 5 months late then anything. ;)
matty4donna
19-07-2003, 18:42
Originally posted by Ramrod
holy cow:eek: a) How does that fit into a case? Do you have to cut a slot in the front for it to stick out of?
b) Does it take off when the fans are running?:D
You think thats bad, take a look at the Voodoo5 6000 - www.ukpcnet.co.uk/voodoo56k.htm :D - And had the VSA-100 GPU's not been in such short supply it would have been released to the public! :eek:
Originally posted by matty4donna
The DetFX are amazing.
Detonator FX? Don't suppose they'll work on my geforce 4 T1 4600 will they?:D
matty4donna
19-07-2003, 19:24
Yes they will and you will probably notice a slight performance increase ;)
Originally posted by matty4donna
Yes they will and you will probably notice a slight performance increase ;) Now you are sure about that? I will not bork my gpu/pc installing those? Is it enough of an increase to bother?
matty4donna
19-07-2003, 19:36
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=winxp-2k_44.03 - There it is.
Yes im sure :)
Im running Detonator 50.xx BETA at the moment for my GeForceFX 5800Ultra and they are sweet :)
Originally posted by matty4donna
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=winxp-2k_44.03 - There it is.
Yes im sure :)
Im running Detonator 50.xx BETA at the moment for my GeForceFX 5800Ultra and they are sweet :)
ah....lol....I'm running the 44.03 as we speak, and have done since they came out.:D
tnx anyway:)
btw....wr is that beta from?
matty4donna
19-07-2003, 19:43
I got them off my boss i dunno where he got them from, he is probably an nVidia tester, he tests for loads of companies. :D
Originally posted by matty4donna
BTW, that aint a RamPage, in fact its probably a prototype of a Voodoo4 from early 1999 based on a Voodoo5 circuit board. ;)
Ive uploaded a very rare pic of a RamPage prototype - http://www.ukpcnet.co.uk/RamPage.htm ;)
Well unless "rampage" translates into something completely different in Italian, then it was a picture of one.
As for the whole Voodoo 3 stopgap, this is taken from
http://www.vnroundup.com/index.php?item=articles/3dfx
As a direct result of the pending changes at 3dfx, there were some delays in the production of the next-generation Rampage chips. With the ensuing threat of a 32-bit, marketing-pumped nVidia TNT2 release, 3dfx couldnââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t sit out this product cycle entirely. They released the Voodoo3 (essentially as a placeholder) until Rampage was ready for the big-time.
Originally posted by matty4donna
You think thats bad, take a look at the Voodoo5 6000 - www.ukpcnet.co.uk/voodoo56k.htm :D - And had the VSA-100 GPU's not been in such short supply it would have been released to the public! :eek:
a lot of professional workstation cards are as big (if not bigger) than that beast. Some of the high end 3d labs oxygens are massive.
http://www.epinions.com/cmhd-Graphics_Cards-All-3DLabs_OxygenGMX
matty4donna
19-07-2003, 20:03
Originally posted by Bifta
a lot of professional workstation cards are as big (if not bigger) than that beast. Some of the high end 3d labs oxygens are massive.
http://www.epinions.com/cmhd-Graphics_Cards-All-3DLabs_OxygenGMX Hehehehe i wouldnt mind a 3d Labs 6210 with 418mb RAM lol! 3dfx sold the SLI technology to Quantum3D for upto 32 processors. I used to have a funny pic of a Voodoo5 ill see if i can find it ;)
matty4donna
19-07-2003, 20:08
www.ukpcnet.co.uk/v6.htm - Lol, i cant find the pic i used to have it had like 20 chips on it lol! Thats ones good enough tho :D
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.