Anyone with a Pioneer DVD?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MatuX
  • Start date Start date
RE: Heh heh heh..

>never compare prices with americans its
>depressing

The land of the free, or at least inexpensive...

>anyway if you're going to go
>for an awesome godlike system
>don't get a geforce2 wait
>for the nv20 or the
>radeon 2. ATI are starting
>to make really good cards
>now the radeon is really
>good and has more features
>than any currently available geforce
>of course the drivers suck.

Are you kidding? Even the $100 MX can match the Radeon DDR card in some cases. ATI's card simply can't compete with the GeForce. Furthermore, bad drivers ALONE make me not want to buy ATI cards anymore. The GeForce drivers are matured, tested drivers while ATI simply throws the hardware out and it takes literally half a year for a decent set of drivers (or a year in my case with the Rage 128).

Take a look at these benchmarks:

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/00q4/001019/radeon-07.html

ATI's cards don't even TOUCH the GeForce GTS, and the margin is substantial, usually around 30-40% better than the Radeon.

Also, the GeForce cards will soon have the Detonator3 drivers which should kick some serious ass, flooring any of the worthless drivers ATI produces.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Heh heh heh..

>>ECC RAM is built for high-demand
>>servers, so it should improve
>>your RAM "experience."
>>
>
>With the on-die L2 cache of
>the Thunderbird + its speed,
>320mb of PC133 SDRAM should
>be more than sufficient to
>deliever extremely high speed and
>efficiency.

RAM is the single-most effective way to increase your system speed. I'd invest in some good RAM.

>>MX is the cheapest GeForce chipset.
>> Usually it sells on
>>$100 cards. It gets
>>about 1/2 to 1/3 the
>>frame rate and speed as
>>a Geforce GTS.
>>
>
>Yah, but most games uses VSync
>to syncrhonize FPS with the
>Monitor, a standard monitor can't
>handle more than ~75fps, so,
>with a 1Ghz CPU and
>a MX (which makes Q3
>don't drop from ~50fps even
>on my computer), why would
>I need to run it
>on higher fps?

Because you'll achieve high frame rates at high video modes, like 1600x1400. Yeah, 140 fps for 640x480 is not needed, but 40 fps on 1280x1024 really sucks.

>I have to pay 50% on
>taxes for +$100 imported products.

Yikes.. that sucks..

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Heh heh heh..

I didn't say it was faster I said it was a good card and supported more features than the geforce2 and it does it has more advanced Tnl 3D textures etc. Right now nothing touches the geforce2 for pure speed.

What do you mean soon for Detonator3 drivers I'm using them now

http://www.nvidia.com/products.nsf/htmlmedia/detonator3.html

Heres a thought if nvidia have bought 3dfx then will the geforce2 get glide drivers? That would be fast!

And my net access costs can match anyones!! It's totally free.
 
RE: Heh heh heh..

>I didn't say it was faster
>I said it was a
>good card and supported more
>features than the geforce2 and

But what good are the features when the card itself isn't fast enough, or if most programs don't bother using those features?

>What do you mean soon for
>Detonator3 drivers I'm using them
>now

Heh.. I was citing from the article's time.. only after I posted did I realize that error.. :)

>Heres a thought if nvidia have
>bought 3dfx then will the
>geforce2 get glide drivers?
>That would be fast!

The drivers themselves aren't fast, it's just that they are specially designed for the cards. If the GeForce or ATI had an API made just for their cards, and the programmers used it, it would be fast too.

>And my net access costs can
>match anyones!! It's totally free.

56k or is it broadband?

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Heh heh heh..

>only 40fps at 1280x1024!!

Sounds stupid huh? I guess to see no flicker you need 60 or something.. I think that's the max the human eye can really tell a difference (100fps is the max your eye can physically see at).

40 fps seems like a lot to me too. Hell, I played DOOM on a 386 SX 16 with a viewing window only 60 pixels across (because anything more was too chunky).. I didn't play for long though..

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Heh heh heh..

The new features aren't used at all by current games but future games will use them. The radeon has the best support for the new features in d3d8 geforce2 hasn't got a lot of support for the new features at all.

It's 56K in my dreams its broadband :)
 
RE: Heh heh heh..

>Sounds stupid huh? I guess
>to see no flicker you
>need 60 or something..
>I think that's the max
>the human eye can really
>tell a difference (100fps is
>the max your eye can
>physically see at).
>
>40 fps seems like a lot
>to me too.

All the pro Quake players demand something like 150-200 fps or they just won't play. Plus you have to have a USB mouse with a 1000 hz refresh rate or something (Razer Boomslang... ahh...).
You notice a difference even between 100 fps and 150. If you turn around 180 degrees quick, in let's say, a 10th of a second, the movement is only drawn by 6 frames if you have 60 fps. So quick movements in point blank combat confuse you if your opponent moves around quickly.

All the real Quake men play at 640x480 and all the detail as low as possible, even on an Athlon 1.2 ghz/Geforce2.

"Blessed are those who break the rules."
 
RE: Heh heh heh..

>All the pro Quake players demand
>something like 150-200 fps or
>they just won't play. Plus
>you have to have a
>USB mouse with a 1000
>hz refresh rate or something
>(Razer Boomslang... ahh...).

And they're probably asking idSoftware if they can implement side-view monitors and multi-processor support as a single Pentium Xeon just doesn't cut it...

>You notice a difference even between
>100 fps and 150. If
>you turn around 180 degrees
>quick, in let's say, a
>10th of a second, the
>movement is only drawn by
>6 frames if you have
>60 fps. So quick movements
>in point blank combat confuse
>you if your opponent moves
>around quickly.

I guess they must be evolved humans because for most humans the physical maxiumum input rate of the eye itself is only 100 times a second. Most humans can't tell the difference above 60 fps..

>All the real Quake men play
>at 640x480 and all the
>detail as low as possible,
>even on an Athlon 1.2
>ghz/Geforce2.

No, real men play DOOM Legacy on Pentium computers.. :)

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top