Go Back   nV News Forums > Graphics Card Forums > Other Desktop Graphics Cards

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-19-02, 01:15 AM   #145
borntosoul
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 470
Default

I see everyone is losing the point here ,the point is simple dont complicate it with tech talk,there is way more difference in the 8500 - 9700 than the gf3 ti500 - gf4 simple as that ,in both features and performance and design. Since we r talking about the new cards can some of you at least give ati some credit for bringing out a great card ,and for all the people that give ati so much crap about their drivers (maybe some of it being justified)take a look back when 3dfx was around ,nvidia was second to them for ages with drivers and compatability but nv beat them to 32 bit and hardware t&l and the rest is history,im not saying nvidia will be history but things can change so hopefuly people can accept that ati might have their stuff together,im not a loyal fan for any company i just buy what i think is the best overall product . Lucky im not in the market to buy a card 'till jan next year so hopefully by then the dust will have settled and we can see what cards do well with doom3 as that game engine will be around for a while so it would make sence to buy a card based on that
borntosoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 01:41 AM   #146
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Actually, as I've heard from developers, 3dfx was exceedingly poor with driver development. Games just worked because their cards were the fastest for some time, and thus had huge market share.

By comparison, nVidia's drivers have been very good since around the time of the TNT2.

I do remember buying the original TNT, and the drivers were poor at first, but that was quickly remedied around the time of the release of the original Detonator drivers.

Still, according to some developers, Matrox is still the best with driver development.

Oh, and the 9700 is an excellent product. It does appear to have far, far fewer issues at launch than previous ATI releases, but the issues are still there. Basically, the way I see it, the Radeon 9700 is a large leap forward for ATI, and it couldn't have come at a better time for them, but I still feel that nVidia's current long-run outlook is very, very promising (in particular, the rumored NV31 product, supposedly out next Spring...and note that an NV31 would be a low cost DX9 part...which is more than just a little exciting).
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 02:01 AM   #147
borntosoul
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 470
Default

yeh um for compatabilty 3dfx were ahead of nvidia(mainly because 3dfx did have such a large market share and companies had to make sure their games worked well on 3dfx hardware(sounds like nvidia of today) but things changed quickly and nvidia to their credit caught up and then surpassed em. yeh im also looking forward to what nvidia has to offer in the nv30,if they could release a lower cost dx9 card that would be great ,but i dont think that will happen 'till late 2003
borntosoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 02:19 AM   #148
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

I'm not saying that 3dfx's drivers were bad for gamers...they couldn't be bad, since game developers made games with 3dfx as the primary development platform.

But try talking to developers at the time, and see what they have to say. For example, I specifically remember Tim Sweeney stating that 3dfx's drivers were absolutely horrid.

As a side note, if 3dfx's drivers were ever any good, how could the WickedGL drivers ever have surpassed 3dfx's in-house drivers? It just seems absolutely impossible for a third party driver to be any better if the first party driver is any good in the first place.
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 02:53 AM   #149
borntosoul
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 470
Default

i agree thats my point it wasnt really because of their drivers but more because they had software companies making sure their games worked on 3dfx cards.hehe im still stuck with a geforce 2 mx and i can just play most games with the detail turned down a bit ,unreal torn 2003 demo runs good ,ive mannaged mainly because i like rts games(they r going 3d now anyway) and slower moving 3d games like what doom3 is going to be like ,,so here comes nv30 by christmas i hope
borntosoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 03:01 AM   #150
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Well, personally I feel it's very, very likely that the NV30 will be available in some form by Christmas. The only question is with regards to availability, which could swing either way. For example, nVidia may try to push as many through to get decent economies of scale...TSMC currently doesn't do much .13 micron business, so it's going to be even more expensive if nVidia only has a few made.
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 07:18 AM   #151
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

What worries me is the drivers for the nv30.

Last time nV majorly changed designs was from the GF2 to a GF3. Out of the gate GF3 had driver issues. It was about four weeks from when Web sites gave the tech info on the GF3 before they were allowed to post benchmark scores. NV told these sites to hold off until the get some of the driver perfromance issues worked out. Then when they were able to postin some cases the GF3 lost to the GF2 Ultra. All of these problems were fixed with in a few driver revs. So with a completely new desing of the chip I shure hope they dont run into the same thing that the GF3 did back when it was launched. I do know that nV team is talented so I am sure they can get the job done...still nothing is certian
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 08:11 AM   #152
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

it was slower at low resolution and in 16bit color in almost all those situations. which really isn't much of a complaint, given that the gf2ultra was "faster" and there is little to no reason why anyone using a GF3 would use 16bit color and low resolutions.

you have a legitimate complaint with professional rendering apps, where the gf2ultra was winning at the time of GF3 launch, but honestly how many people here care about that.

i have little to no doubt that nvidia will deliver where it counts, high resolution, high detail(FSAA+AF)
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-02, 09:24 AM   #153
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
it was slower at low resolution and in 16bit color in almost all those situations. which really isn't much of a complaint, given that the gf2ultra was "faster" and there is little to no reason why anyone using a GF3 would use 16bit color and low resolutions.
There were a bunch of games still stuck in 16 bit color back then. In fact there are a few floating around today that are 16 bit only.
But the point is their first set of drivers had issues. It had so many issuse that it was not till 30 days after the launch before benchmark numbers were allowed to be posted. That shows that as good as nV is, they are not perfrect.
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 10:01 AM   #154
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jbirney
But the point is their first set of drivers had issues. It had so many issuse that it was not till 30 days after the launch before benchmark numbers were allowed to be posted. That shows that as good as nV is, they are not perfrect.
Let me just say that the GeForce3's primary problem was lack of availability at launch. The drivers really weren't that bad. They did have performance problems, but not much in the way of compatibility/stability issues.

Additionally, if hte GeForce3's were available at the time of announcement, nothing in the world could have kept websites from posting benchmark scores. The simple fact is that the cards just weren't available until one rev later.
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 12:26 PM   #155
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
Let me just say that the GeForce3's primary problem was lack of availability at launch. The drivers really weren't that bad. They did have performance problems, but not much in the way of compatibility/stability issues.

Additionally, if hte GeForce3's were available at the time of announcement, nothing in the world could have kept websites from posting benchmark scores. The simple fact is that the cards just weren't available until one rev later.

Oh dear lord, please tell me your joking right? You dont remember what happened 18 months ago. Ok right on the first page of anadtechs reveiw of the GF3:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1442

Quote:
Honestly, there are no benchmarks - Had NVIDIA allowed reviewers to go live with benchmarks on February 27 to coincide with the GeForce3's technology launch, there would have been quite a bit of negative press regarding the GeForce3. As we mentioned in our 'NV20' Revealed article, the GeForce3's performance superiority in current games will only lie at high resolutions (higher than 1024 x 768 x 32) or when enabling its Quincunx Anti Aliasing. In many ways, the GeForce3 would have paralleled the Pentium 4's launch in that the current crop of benchmarks (in this case, games) would not have shown any performance increase that's worth the money. Now, with 3DMark 2001 out as well as a demo of an upcoming DX8 title, NVIDIA has hopes that these two can lighten the blow. We'll let you be the judge as we're about to paint as complete of a picture of the GeForce3's performance as possible.
I can provide more but I think the anandtech link proves what most of us remember.....
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-02, 02:02 PM   #156
SnakeEyes
Registered User
 
SnakeEyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Zurich, IL
Posts: 502
Send a message via ICQ to SnakeEyes
Default

jb, that doesn't make it a problem. Performance doesn't equal lack of compatibility or stability. And even for the situations where the performance was lower than the GF2Ultra, it was still more than acceptable everywhere. The biggest difference was that the card didn't run out of legs when you started throwing a load on it (increasing resolution, color depth, AA, aniso, etc.), unlike the GF2.

We've all been over this before though. The biggest difference between ATI's drivers and nVidia's up until now hasn't been the state of performance optimization at launch (what you're saying about the GF3's performance seems to be valid for the 9700 right now as well, though the card is fast enough that it usually doesn't drop as low compared to others available- low res / low color depth, with FSAA / aniso and the card actually scores lower than at some of the higher resolutions / color depth / AA / aniso). It's that nVidia has had relatively few real bugs (you know, this game won't run, that game has spotty textures, with this hardware my system won't boot), while ATIs drivers have had more. 9700 has been a pleasant change, obviously, but as far as it goes, it hasn't improved things to the point that ATI's launch drivers are better than most that nVidia has out with their cards at launch. Plain and simple.
__________________
Snake-Eyes
SnakeEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
R9700 Oficially Announced druga runda Other Desktop Graphics Cards 20 04-25-08 10:28 PM
Get a Radeon 9700 now or wait for the NV30? sancheuz Other Desktop Graphics Cards 88 02-19-03 04:40 PM
FalconNW and Voodoo under ATI 9700 spell!!! mizzer Other Desktop Graphics Cards 12 09-20-02 07:53 PM
Radeon 9700 pics -=DVS=- Other Desktop Graphics Cards 12 08-01-02 09:35 AM
Are there any comparisons of the GeForce4 Ti 4600 to the Radeon 9700 yet? john19055 NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 8 07-28-02 02:07 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2014, nV News.