Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Doom3 Benchmarks out!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 22, 2004 4:31:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy

Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny
version was $345 shipped from provantage).

rms

More about : doom3 benchmarks

Anonymous
July 22, 2004 4:31:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
news:tVDLc.60$or1.20@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy
>
> Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny
> version was $345 shipped from provantage).
>
> rms
>


I thought it was a good article and it makes me happy I have a 9800 Pro
video card. However, I can't wait to see how Doom 3 plays on systems that
are a little more "real world". For example, I hope they bench it on
processors 1.5GHz and up with GeForce4 MX and GeForce3 cards and up. I'd
like to see an all-round comparison with as many combinations of CPU and
video cards as possible.

Thanks for posting that link!
July 22, 2004 5:07:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 00:31:21 GMT, "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net>
wrote:

>http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy
>
>Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny
>version was $345 shipped from provantage).

Yes, 6800GT seems to be a great card to buy. The only difference
between this card and 6800Ultra is the clock speed. Reminds me of
Ti4200 in some regards.

Since I have every intention of keeping my 9800 (overclocked past Pro
speeds) at least till the end of next year, I find the Fx5950 and
9800XT scores very encouraging. At 1024x768 with very high settings
(4xAA, 16xAF) they are close to 30 fps and 45+ (with no AA and 8xAF).

I think, my graphic card should be able to hit average of 30 fps at
1024x768 2xAA and 8xAF. That's all I need for Doom3 and the games that
will be based on its engine, for now.

As far as pricing of new graphic cards go, the next few months will be
very interesting.
--
Noman, happy with his 9800 (Pro)
Related resources
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 5:07:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> As far as pricing of new graphic cards go, the next few months will be
> very interesting.
> --
> Noman, happy with his 9800 (Pro)

The last couple months saw some good price drops when the 6800 and x800
became available. Now you can get a 9800 PRO for under $200. I'm still
clinging to my 5200 ultra until I am forced to part with it :) 
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 6:31:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"David Besack" <daveREMOVEbesack@mac.com> wrote in message
news:cdn4hg$drl6$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
> > As far as pricing of new graphic cards go, the next few months will be
> > very interesting.
> > --
> > Noman, happy with his 9800 (Pro)
>
> The last couple months saw some good price drops when the 6800 and x800
> became available. Now you can get a 9800 PRO for under $200. I'm still
> clinging to my 5200 ultra until I am forced to part with it :) 

I follow this rule (Humga's 1st Law of Graphics Card Upgrade):

Buy the new card when the performance (frame rate usually being a good
measure) drops to roughly half of that of the new card. Then you must get at
least **some** cash back for the 'old' card.

This will ensure that you'll be able to play with your the old and new games
with decent performance without costing you too much :D 

Please note that the 'new' card isn't necessarily the fastest card in the
market...think about it.
July 22, 2004 6:42:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Humga" <Humga@no-spam.com> wrote in message
news:bc-dnfpBMrZzhWLd4p2dnA@eclipse.net.uk...

>
> I follow this rule (Humga's 1st Law of Graphics Card Upgrade):
>
>

Pretty cool having a law named after you. ;-)
July 22, 2004 10:17:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"NightSky 421" <nightsky421@reply-to-group.com> wrote:
> "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote:
> > http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy
> >
> > Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny
> > version was $345 shipped from provantage).
> >
> > rms
> >
>
>
> I thought it was a good article and it makes me happy I have a 9800 Pro
> video card. However, I can't wait to see how Doom 3 plays on systems that
> are a little more "real world". For example, I hope they bench it on
> processors 1.5GHz and up with GeForce4 MX and GeForce3 cards and up. I'd
> like to see an all-round comparison with as many combinations of CPU and
> video cards as possible.

GeForce 4 MX will perform like a turd stuck in toilet seat. Heck,
even GeForce 3 will drown into the quicksand. I have no idea how much
difference there is between the "medium detail"- mode and "high
detail"- mode, but I just refuse to believe that "GeForce 3" would
surf the game with high details. I couldn't even turn on all the
details in "Unreal 2" without diving into the bottom of the chart.
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 10:36:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

ATI's OpenGL drivers aren't so great. They are workable but not great.

The only thing impressive about the new Geforce cards is instancing
support in Vertex Shader 3.0. And so far it's been used in exactly one
game, and I don't expect that to change much for a long time.

ATI hard their cards out first. Unlike NVidia, they don't need to cook
their drivers. NVidia will have to work very hard to earn back my trust.
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 11:46:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"NightSky 421" <nightsky421@reply-to-group.com> writes:

> For example, I hope they bench it on processors 1.5GHz and up with
> GeForce4 MX and GeForce3 cards and up.

From the article:

"As of this afternoon we were playing DOOM 3 on a 1.5GHz Pentium 4
box with a GeForce 4 MX440 video card and having a surprisingly good
gaming experience. Even a subtle jump to an AMD 2500+ with a GeForce
3 video card that is two years old will deliver a solid gaming
experience that will let you enjoy the game the way id Software
designed it to be."

Not a benchmark, but at least it's positive (if subjective).

Nick


--
# sigmask || 0.2 || 20030107 || public domain || feed this to a python
print reduce(lambda x,y:x+chr(ord(y)-1),' Ojdl!Wbshjti!=obwAcboefstobudi/psh?')
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 12:26:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Nada" <nada_says@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9c228ae.0407220517.66f1e6e0@posting.google.com...
>
> GeForce 4 MX will perform like a turd stuck in toilet seat.


LOL, I love that description!


> Heck,
> even GeForce 3 will drown into the quicksand. I have no idea how much
> difference there is between the "medium detail"- mode and "high
> detail"- mode, but I just refuse to believe that "GeForce 3" would
> surf the game with high details. I couldn't even turn on all the
> details in "Unreal 2" without diving into the bottom of the chart.


Well when I read the article, I was under the impression myself that the
game details would have to be turned down in order to get a decent playing
experience with GeForce3 and Radeon 8500 cards. As to what low detail
will actually look like, we will see. Not that I'm immediately inclined
to find out myself, of course. :-)

As the release date for Doom 3 draws nearer, I for whatever reason find
myself willing to loosen up the purse strings somewhat. Still, I'm going
to wait and see if there are any technical or driver issues before taking
the plunge. I very much look forward to seeing this newsgroup next week!
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 12:55:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"NightSky 421" <nightsky421@reply-to-group.com> wrote in message news:<10fu4eb889gdk53@corp.supernews.com>...
> "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
> news:tVDLc.60$or1.20@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> > http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy
> >
> > Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny
> > version was $345 shipped from provantage).
> >
> > rms
> >
>
>
> I thought it was a good article and it makes me happy I have a 9800 Pro
> video card. However, I can't wait to see how Doom 3 plays on systems that
> are a little more "real world". For example, I hope they bench it on
> processors 1.5GHz and up with GeForce4 MX and GeForce3 cards and up. I'd
> like to see an all-round comparison with as many combinations of CPU and
> video cards as possible.
>
> Thanks for posting that link!


According to the article Doom3 will come with a time demo, so just run
the time demo with your card and start a thread with your hardware.
Then after a couple of weeks someone can put all the data in a
spreadsheet and give an accounting for the cards that are listed. What
gets me, is there is no mention of Multiplayer game play anywhere.
When I get the game this will be one of the first things I will check
out, cause it will determine the longevity of the game.

Gnu_Raiz
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 4:05:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gMMLc.6214$yF.4333@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> ATI's OpenGL drivers aren't so great. They are workable but not great.
>
> The only thing impressive about the new Geforce cards is instancing
> support in Vertex Shader 3.0. And so far it's been used in exactly one
> game, and I don't expect that to change much for a long time.
>
> ATI hard their cards out first. Unlike NVidia, they don't need to cook
> their drivers. NVidia will have to work very hard to earn back my trust.
>
Sour grapes?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.725 / Virus Database: 480 - Release Date: 7/19/2004
July 22, 2004 6:35:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

At 1024x768 with very high settings
> (4xAA, 16xAF) they are close to 30 fps and 45+ (with no AA and 8xAF).

Those numbers were timedemos, not actual in game framerates
which would be much lower.

Jeff B
July 22, 2004 6:41:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

>
> ATI hard their cards out first.

Neither ATI or nvidia have their top of the line cards out.

Jeff B
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 6:52:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4EPLc.8235$yF.5657@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> If you go out and buy a GeForce FX 6800 just because it runs faster in
> Doom III, you're a fool. End of line.

Couldn't agree more, especially when you consider that in three years
it's going to be selling on eBay for 40 bucks. Video cards have very very
short life-cycles.


RayO
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 8:57:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
news:tVDLc.60$or1.20@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy
>
> Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny
> version was $345 shipped from provantage).

They didn't bench anything older than 5950... what a bunch of clowns.
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 8:57:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> They didn't bench anything older than 5950... what a bunch of clowns.

It says in the article that a broader range of CPU and GFX cards will be
checked for a future feature

--
Toby
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 8:57:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:57:10 +1000, "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au>
wrote:

>"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
>news:tVDLc.60$or1.20@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>> http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy
>>
>> Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny
>> version was $345 shipped from provantage).
>
>They didn't bench anything older than 5950... what a bunch of clowns.
>

I'm wondering if the low benchmark scores on those cards are
because of the heavy DX9 shader use. Since a card such as the GF4 Ti
doesn't support DX9, I'm guessing the game will either switch to a DX8
code for effects, or just omit the shaders all together. If so, would
that mean that a GF4 Ti might get framerates that are about the same
as the DX9 cards, but just not look as good?
July 22, 2004 8:57:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message
news:2m96qiFj9hfbU1@uni-berlin.de...
> "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
> news:tVDLc.60$or1.20@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> > http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy
> >
> > Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny
> > version was $345 shipped from provantage).
>
> They didn't bench anything older than 5950... what a bunch of clowns.

My thoughts exactly...
July 22, 2004 8:57:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote:
> "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote:
> > http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy
> >
> > Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny
> > version was $345 shipped from provantage).
>
> They didn't bench anything older than 5950... what a bunch of clowns.


I thought it was an okay preview benchmarking article, and I'm pretty
sure that once the game is out, we'll see plenty of good
benchmarkings. Keep an eye on www.xbitlabs.com in the upcoming weeks.
I'd say that if we with our average graphics cards cut out the
anisotropic filtering seen on the 5950 Ultra benchmark table, the
framerate will most likely stay around the same speeds with 9800 Pros
and 5900 XTs. As far as the engine's flexibility goes, I'd take that
with a grain of ginger when it comes to the "high detail" modes. I
personally won't consider playing the game anything less than Radeon
9800 or GeForce 5900. Will GeForce 3 be able to swoop it with high
details? Hell, no. That dog won't hunt.
July 22, 2004 8:57:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:46:24 -0500, Larry Roberts <skin-e@juno.com>
wrote:

> I'm wondering if the low benchmark scores on those cards are
>because of the heavy DX9 shader use.

iD games are OpenGL, not D3D.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 8:57:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Agreed.......seriously, they couldn't test a Radeon 9800 Pro?? Which was the
definitive ATI card to buy for more than a year's time........Another thing:
Is there a particular reason why these guys claim to be "Just publishing
straight up FPS numbers", and yet they dont test with AA and Filtering OFF?

Those last batches of tests leave 8x AF *ON*.......seriously, there are
plenty of gamers out there (like...ME) who never turn on AA or AF.....AF
puts more of a hit on framerates than low-level AA does.....I'm guessing
those Radeon XT tests would be higher if you turned off that 8x AF...



"GuitarMan" <usa@yourface.com> wrote in message
news:xXNLc.16656$W86.18@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
>
> "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote in message
> news:2m96qiFj9hfbU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
> > news:tVDLc.60$or1.20@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> > > http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy
> > >
> > > Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my
pny
> > > version was $345 shipped from provantage).
> >
> > They didn't bench anything older than 5950... what a bunch of clowns.
>
> My thoughts exactly...
>
>
July 22, 2004 10:23:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:52:06 -0400, "magnulus"
<magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> If you go out and buy a GeForce FX 6800 just because it runs faster in
>Doom III, you're a fool. End of line.
>

GeForce 6800 line works fine in other games too. They do trail behind
X800XT-PE in some DX9 games but not by much. Granted ATI still has to
optimise their memory controller (which, I read somewhere, is running
at 60-70% efficiency) and they are also rewriting their openGl drivers
from scratch. You can expect more optimisations from nVidia as well.

IMO, X800XT-PE is a better choice (if you can find it, that is) than
6800Ultra and 6800GT is better than X800Pro, given their MSRPs and
also the power requirements.

The bottomline is that these are all great cards and should run most
of the Source/Doom3/CryEngine/UT based games without any problems.
--
Noman
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 3:39:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2004 07:46:18 -0400, Nick Vargish
<nav+posts@bandersnatch.org> wrote:

>"NightSky 421" <nightsky421@reply-to-group.com> writes:
>
>> For example, I hope they bench it on processors 1.5GHz and up with
>> GeForce4 MX and GeForce3 cards and up.
>
>From the article:
>
> "As of this afternoon we were playing DOOM 3 on a 1.5GHz Pentium 4
> box with a GeForce 4 MX440 video card and having a surprisingly good
> gaming experience. Even a subtle jump to an AMD 2500+ with a GeForce
> 3 video card that is two years old will deliver a solid gaming
> experience that will let you enjoy the game the way id Software
> designed it to be."
>
>Not a benchmark, but at least it's positive (if subjective).
>
>Nick

Fingers crossed then.

--

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 3:56:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gMMLc.6214$yF.4333@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> ATI's OpenGL drivers aren't so great. They are workable but not great.
>
> The only thing impressive about the new Geforce cards is instancing
> support in Vertex Shader 3.0. And so far it's been used in exactly one
> game, and I don't expect that to change much for a long time.
>
> ATI hard their cards out first. Unlike NVidia, they don't need to cook
> their drivers. NVidia will have to work very hard to earn back my trust.
>

The funny thing is, ATI is the company that gets caught "optimizing" their
drivers in this article. Give it a close read.

NVida made some unwise design decisions in the last round of cards. As
such, they had to make some tradeoffs in image quality to get the
performance up, basically making the best of a bad situation.

It's funny how different people can interpret the same data differently.
I've had an ATI card in my box for quite some time but I feel that NVidia
has the better product this round. If you feel the need to "punish" NVidia
for the FX series this go around I guess you can do that but I think it's
your loss.

B
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 4:22:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Looks like PCIe 6800GT SLI may be the sweet spot for this game.

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
news:tVDLc.60$or1.20@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy
>
> Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny
> version was $345 shipped from provantage).
>
> rms
>
>
July 23, 2004 6:17:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"NightSky 421" <nightsky421@reply-to-group.com> wrote:
> "Nada" <nada_says@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > GeForce 4 MX will perform like a turd stuck in toilet seat.
>
>
> LOL, I love that description!

My younger cousins have a GeForce 4 MX and I'm expecting a few dozen
panic calls at midnight.


> > Heck,
> > even GeForce 3 will drown into the quicksand. I have no idea how much
> > difference there is between the "medium detail"- mode and "high
> > detail"- mode, but I just refuse to believe that "GeForce 3" would
> > surf the game with high details. I couldn't even turn on all the
> > details in "Unreal 2" without diving into the bottom of the chart.
>
>
> Well when I read the article, I was under the impression myself that the
> game details would have to be turned down in order to get a decent playing
> experience with GeForce3 and Radeon 8500 cards. As to what low detail
> will actually look like, we will see. Not that I'm immediately inclined
> to find out myself, of course. :-)
>
> As the release date for Doom 3 draws nearer, I for whatever reason find
> myself willing to loosen up the purse strings somewhat. Still, I'm going
> to wait and see if there are any technical or driver issues before taking
> the plunge. I very much look forward to seeing this newsgroup next week!

I'm sure the game will still look better than most average FPS games
with medium details, but to me "Doom 3" is one of those games where I
can't turn the details off if my life depended on it. It's meant to
be played in full regalia. I might have to crush my piggy bank as
well to purchase a new monitor, which is as expensive as getting a new
graphics card.
July 23, 2004 8:34:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"HeadRusch" <HeadRusch1@NO_SPAM_comcast.net> wrote:
> Agreed.......seriously, they couldn't test a Radeon 9800 Pro?? Which was the
> definitive ATI card to buy for more than a year's time........Another thing:
> Is there a particular reason why these guys claim to be "Just publishing
> straight up FPS numbers", and yet they dont test with AA and Filtering OFF?
>
> Those last batches of tests leave 8x AF *ON*.......seriously, there are
> plenty of gamers out there (like...ME) who never turn on AA or AF.....AF
> puts more of a hit on framerates than low-level AA does.....I'm guessing
> those Radeon XT tests would be higher if you turned off that 8x AF...

Hardocp do benchmark tests in a different way. In most cases they
will choose a "sweetspot" for each card where the performance won't
drop into early teens. My guess is that with 5900 XT and 9800 Pro we
have to turn AF off, but can still play "Doom 3" with maximum graphic
effects. That was just a preview test, and I'm sure the web will be
flooded with "Doom 3" benchmarks once the game is installed in most
homes. If anything, "Doom 3" will become the most used benchmark the
next two years, just like Quake III was at the time of its release.
July 23, 2004 8:49:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 00:31:21 GMT, "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy
> >
> >Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny
> >version was $345 shipped from provantage).
>
> Yes, 6800GT seems to be a great card to buy. The only difference
> between this card and 6800Ultra is the clock speed. Reminds me of
> Ti4200 in some regards.
>
> Since I have every intention of keeping my 9800 (overclocked past Pro
> speeds) at least till the end of next year, I find the Fx5950 and
> 9800XT scores very encouraging. At 1024x768 with very high settings
> (4xAA, 16xAF) they are close to 30 fps and 45+ (with no AA and 8xAF).
>
> I think, my graphic card should be able to hit average of 30 fps at
> 1024x768 2xAA and 8xAF. That's all I need for Doom3 and the games that
> will be based on its engine, for now.

It'll do pretty well for the next six months and perhaps can stretch
its life to late spring 2005.

> As far as pricing of new graphic cards go, the next few months will be
> very interesting.

It's been very harsh when it comes to the prices. I don't know how
it's in Canada and USA at the moment, but here in Europe we're seeing
prices of 500 euros for Nvidia's biggest guns abd ATI's top of the
line cards aren't too cheap either. I read from somewhere on the
internet where the Ultra was priced at 800 dollars max which is
absolutely insane! I've never had a problem of giving up 230 euros,
but over 500 euros is just way too dam much even for the performance
these new cards have to offer. I remember the 1994 when we'd struggle
with 386s with "Doom", so maybe there's a way to get through the
autumn without a panic inside the piggy bank.
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 9:03:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On 7/22/2004 9:56 PM BRanger brightened our day with:

>"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:gMMLc.6214$yF.4333@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>> ATI's OpenGL drivers aren't so great. They are workable but not great.
>>
>> The only thing impressive about the new Geforce cards is instancing
>>support in Vertex Shader 3.0. And so far it's been used in exactly one
>>game, and I don't expect that to change much for a long time.
>>
>> ATI hard their cards out first. Unlike NVidia, they don't need to cook
>>their drivers. NVidia will have to work very hard to earn back my trust.
>>
>>
>>
>
>The funny thing is, ATI is the company that gets caught "optimizing" their
>drivers in this article. Give it a close read.
>
>NVida made some unwise design decisions in the last round of cards. As
>such, they had to make some tradeoffs in image quality to get the
>performance up, basically making the best of a bad situation.
>
>It's funny how different people can interpret the same data differently.
>I've had an ATI card in my box for quite some time but I feel that NVidia
>has the better product this round. If you feel the need to "punish" NVidia
>for the FX series this go around I guess you can do that but I think it's
>your loss.
>
>B
>
>
>
>
As consumers we should be pleased that these two big video card
companies are engaged in quality competition. nVidia catching and
perhaps surpassing ATI on this round of card releases should lead to
further innovation by ATI, and better products all around for us in the
future.

--
Steve [Inglo]
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 4:30:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2004 23:56:24 -0500, "BRanger" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote:


>It's funny how different people can interpret the same data differently.
>I've had an ATI card in my box for quite some time but I feel that NVidia
>has the better product this round. If you feel the need to "punish" NVidia
>for the FX series this go around I guess you can do that but I think it's
>your loss.
>
>B
>

Why do you feel they have the better product? The ATI X800PE still
beats the 6800u in many benchamrks and doesn't require a beefed up PSU
or two power connectors.
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 4:57:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Andrew <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:<g34vf0tg207imi8bjpkdqi31fldam9frbn@4ax.com>...
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:46:24 -0500, Larry Roberts <skin-e@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering if the low benchmark scores on those cards are
> >because of the heavy DX9 shader use.
>
> iD games are OpenGL, not D3D.

This is urban legend bullshit. iD (Carmack) prefers OpenGL but
market sensibilities require them to use M$-Direct3D. A bit of
clarification: M$-Direct3D is a subset of M$-DirectX. DirectX contains
Direct3D which is the primary graphics handling portion of DirectX.
OpenGL, on the other hand, is it's own API.
A game developer, or any graphics rendering programmer, can choose
whether to call into use the DirectX (Direct3D) or OpenGL APIs. And if
they want to be totally safe they can program separate modules that
let you choose which API to use. Anybody that remembers the original
Half Life would know that it had an option to choose between OpenGL or
Direct3D or Software. Most games are programmed for both OpenGL and
Direct3D. The code to select one or the other is fairly trivial. What
is not trivial are the pipelines afterwards. OpenGL does not have all
the features of Direct3D and Direct3D does not have some of the
performance that OpenGL does. Also, providing modules for both
increases the programming effort.
The difference these days is that a lot of games are trying to
decide on their own which API to use based on what hardware is being
used, sometimes with mixed results.
July 23, 2004 9:15:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2004 23:56:24 -0500, "BRanger" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote:

>"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:gMMLc.6214$yF.4333@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>> ATI's OpenGL drivers aren't so great. They are workable but not great.
>>
>> The only thing impressive about the new Geforce cards is instancing
>> support in Vertex Shader 3.0. And so far it's been used in exactly one
>> game, and I don't expect that to change much for a long time.
>>
>> ATI hard their cards out first. Unlike NVidia, they don't need to cook
>> their drivers. NVidia will have to work very hard to earn back my trust.
>>
>
>The funny thing is, ATI is the company that gets caught "optimizing" their
>drivers in this article. Give it a close read.

Here's what John Carmack said,

"On the other hand, the Nvidia drivers have been tuned for Doom's
primary light/surface interaction fragment program, and innocuous code
changes can "fall off the fast path" and cause significant performance
impacts, especially on NV30 class cards."

It may be that the 'fast path' is the way shaders are compiled to get
around the NV3x series restrictions.

Both cards have optimizations. The valid ones are good for everybody.
I'd be worried if ATI and nVidia had given up on them and were just
relying on brute force to solve all the issues.

>It's funny how different people can interpret the same data differently.
>I've had an ATI card in my box for quite some time but I feel that NVidia
>has the better product this round. If you feel the need to "punish" NVidia
>for the FX series this go around I guess you can do that but I think it's
>your loss.

Good thing about this generation is that both series of cards are
equally capable and you can't have a wrong choice.

X800 is still ahead in shader heavy DX9 games. The new FarCry
benchmarks (using SM2.0b on X800) show X800PE to be 15-20% ahead of
6800Ultra (which is using SM3.0). This should be good news for X800
owners who are waiting for STALKER or Half Life 2. 6800 is clearly
ahead in DOOM3 and it's likely that the lead will be carried over to
other DOOM3 engine games. However, to me the more important thing is
that nVidia in DX9 and ATI in openGl are competitive enough that most
people would not regret purchasing either of the 6800 or X800 cards.

It comes down to price then. It's hard to beat 6800GT if you can get
it for 300-340$ and X800XT-PE is great at 400-450$ range..........
(says the person, who doesn't buy graphic cards over 200$ :)  )
--
Noman
July 24, 2004 1:03:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On 23 Jul 2004 12:57:46 -0700, blog_smirk@yahoo.com (Blig Merk) wrote:

> This is urban legend bullshit. iD (Carmack) prefers OpenGL but
>market sensibilities require them to use M$-Direct3D. A bit of
>clarification: M$-Direct3D is a subset of M$-DirectX. DirectX contains
>Direct3D which is the primary graphics handling portion of DirectX.
>OpenGL, on the other hand, is it's own API.

I don't take tech lessons from clueless trolls.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
July 24, 2004 6:27:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"JB" <fake@addy.com> wrote in message news:EgQLc.4994$eM2.1630@attbi_s51...
> At 1024x768 with very high settings
> > (4xAA, 16xAF) they are close to 30 fps and 45+ (with no AA and 8xAF).
>
> Those numbers were timedemos, not actual in game framerates
> which would be much lower.
>

?

K
July 24, 2004 8:29:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On 23 Jul 2004 04:49:43 -0700, nada_says@hotmail.com (Nada) scribbled:

[snip]

>It's been very harsh when it comes to the prices. I don't know how
>it's in Canada and USA at the moment, but here in Europe we're seeing
>prices of 500 euros for Nvidia's biggest guns abd ATI's top of the
>line cards aren't too cheap either. I read from somewhere on the
>internet where the Ultra was priced at 800 dollars max which is
>absolutely insane! I've never had a problem of giving up 230 euros,
>but over 500 euros is just way too dam much even for the performance
>these new cards have to offer. I remember the 1994 when we'd struggle
>with 386s with "Doom", so maybe there's a way to get through the
>autumn without a panic inside the piggy bank.

Well, the difference of course is back then, the jump from a 386 to a
486 (or even a 486SX25 to a DX2/66, etc) was huge. It'd be like going
to a P4 8GHz. Moore's Law or no Moore's Law, the speed jumps made now
aren't nearly as dramatic, simply because there are more incremental
releases.

But yeah, Doom 3 will be good, and it will cause many people to spend
a lot of money. ;) 

-Slash
--
"Ebert Victorious"
-The Onion
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 10:45:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

No, it means they won't bench well.

This is the funniest benchmark I've
ever seen, one where 3.2GHz/2Gb/5950
is the low-end.

Hahaha, good one! <LOL>

RayO

"Toby Newman" <google@asktoby.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b697cc68f36128f9897bf@localhost...
>
> > They didn't bench anything older than 5950... what a bunch of clowns.
>
> It says in the article that a broader range of CPU and GFX cards will be
> checked for a future feature
>
> --
> Toby
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 4:54:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Slash" <slash3@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:4kv5g0lgivp35b4oqedoigk4cjhsk59hk2@4ax.com...
> On 23 Jul 2004 04:49:43 -0700, nada_says@hotmail.com (Nada) scribbled:
>
> [snip]
>
> >It's been very harsh when it comes to the prices. I don't know how
> >it's in Canada and USA at the moment, but here in Europe we're seeing
> >prices of 500 euros for Nvidia's biggest guns abd ATI's top of the
> >line cards aren't too cheap either. I read from somewhere on the
> >internet where the Ultra was priced at 800 dollars max which is
> >absolutely insane! I've never had a problem of giving up 230 euros,
> >but over 500 euros is just way too dam much even for the performance
> >these new cards have to offer. I remember the 1994 when we'd struggle
> >with 386s with "Doom", so maybe there's a way to get through the
> >autumn without a panic inside the piggy bank.
>
> Well, the difference of course is back then, the jump from a 386 to a
> 486 (or even a 486SX25 to a DX2/66, etc) was huge. It'd be like going
> to a P4 8GHz. Moore's Law or no Moore's Law, the speed jumps made now
> aren't nearly as dramatic, simply because there are more incremental
> releases.
>
> But yeah, Doom 3 will be good, and it will cause many people to spend
> a lot of money. ;) 

Some corrections:
1) Doom I was released summer of '93, not '94.

2) The 486 was nothing new even in '93, let alone '94. Many people
had started upgrading to 486s from about late '91 and through '92 and
'93. I believe Intel had even stopped making 386s by '92 to focus on
the 486, to make AMD go away with it's 40MHz 386. So when
Doom I was released it's system requirements were
nothing very special at all, neither was Wolf3D's the previous year,
which played nicely on a good 386. Both these games on their release
played very well on the bulk of the installed base. They were both also
sharewared, but that's another story.


RayO
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 9:56:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In <41014386.771070150@news.individual.net> ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) writes:

>X800 is still ahead in shader heavy DX9 games. The new FarCry
>benchmarks (using SM2.0b on X800) show X800PE to be 15-20% ahead of
>6800Ultra (which is using SM3.0). This should be good news for X800
>owners who are waiting for STALKER or Half Life 2. 6800 is clearly
>ahead in DOOM3 and it's likely that the lead will be carried over to
>other DOOM3 engine games. However, to me the more important thing is
>that nVidia in DX9 and ATI in openGl are competitive enough that most
>people would not regret purchasing either of the 6800 or X800 cards.

Maybe this will be the incentive ATI needs to finally make an OpenGL
driver that's not a slug.

--
Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity.
GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v
b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 10:11:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In <yv-dnfdhr7iW8ZzcRVn-tA@speakeasy.net> "Eric" <Eric@nospam.com> writes:

>But what about at high detail with no AF -- that's what I want to see (the
>hell with medium quality)? I'm hoping my new 5900XT can run doom3 at 40 or
>above fps at high quality settings, at 1024 x 768 (with no AA and no AF).
>Note that I have a P4 2.6 (800mhz FSB) and 1 GB of DDR ram.

>This article claims that there is little visual benefit to AF:

>http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1157434,00.a...

>So if I can turn off AF and turn off AA at "high quality" doom 3 settings --
>and run at 1024 x 768 with at least 40 fps -- I'll be happy.

I don't know how recently you looked at the article but there's an
apology at the bottom about having the same pictures for both af and no
af, and the new pictures, at least for me, show a distinct difference,
as he notes, mainly on the floor, where the lines between the stones on
the floor are much more clear cut and realistic than the blurred
together stones in the no af picture. I could easily live with the
blurry floor but it certainly isn't as unnoticable as the article made
it out to be to be.

--
Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity.
GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v
b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 5:14:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Quoth The Raven "RayO" <Menothere@nohog.net> in
NwDMc.954$Qm2.769@nwrddc04.gnilink.net
> "Slash" <slash3@geocities.com> wrote in message
> news:4kv5g0lgivp35b4oqedoigk4cjhsk59hk2@4ax.com...
> > On 23 Jul 2004 04:49:43 -0700, nada_says@hotmail.com (Nada)
> > scribbled:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >It's been very harsh when it comes to the prices. I don't know how
> > >it's in Canada and USA at the moment, but here in Europe we're
> > >seeing prices of 500 euros for Nvidia's biggest guns abd ATI's top
> > >of the line cards aren't too cheap either. I read from somewhere
> > >on the internet where the Ultra was priced at 800 dollars max
> > >which is absolutely insane! I've never had a problem of giving up
> > >230 euros, but over 500 euros is just way too dam much even for
> > >the performance these new cards have to offer. I remember the
> > >1994 when we'd struggle with 386s with "Doom", so maybe there's a
> > >way to get through the autumn without a panic inside the piggy
> > >bank.
> >
> > Well, the difference of course is back then, the jump from a 386 to
> > a 486 (or even a 486SX25 to a DX2/66, etc) was huge. It'd be like
> > going to a P4 8GHz. Moore's Law or no Moore's Law, the speed jumps
> > made now aren't nearly as dramatic, simply because there are more
> > incremental releases.
> >
> > But yeah, Doom 3 will be good, and it will cause many people to
> > spend a lot of money. ;) 
>
> Some corrections:
> 1) Doom I was released summer of '93, not '94.
>
> 2) The 486 was nothing new even in '93, let alone '94. Many people
> had started upgrading to 486s from about late '91 and through '92 and
> '93. I believe Intel had even stopped making 386s by '92 to focus on
> the 486, to make AMD go away with it's 40MHz 386. So when
> Doom I was released it's system requirements were
> nothing very special at all, neither was Wolf3D's the previous year,
> which played nicely on a good 386. Both these games on their release
> played very well on the bulk of the installed base. They were both
> also sharewared, but that's another story.
>
>
> RayO

I had a 486sx2/50 (no math coprocessor) and doom1 S/W ran like a dog with 2
legs, it was literally a slide show. I didn't upgrade until the P90 was a
year old. who could afford it back then?

--
Some do, some don't, some will and some won't ...

Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 5:14:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Highlandish" <ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2mgvn7FmlmlcU2@uni-berlin.de...

>
> I had a 486sx2/50 (no math coprocessor) and doom1 S/W ran like a dog with 2
> legs, it was literally a slide show. I didn't upgrade until the P90 was a
> year old. who could afford it back then?

You probably had a bad chipset, it made a big difference back
then, even 486sx should've done better than that poor dog.
I ran it on 33/386DX and 486/66DX2. On the 386 it
chopped, not a complete slide show, but not
pleasant either. On the 4/66 it rocked.


RayO
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 5:14:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

In article <C_HMc.5999$qT3.4835@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>, Menothere@nohog.net
(RayO) wrote:

> On the 4/66 it rocked.

It's rather sad, but even after all these years the phrase "DX2/66" still
causes a little twinge of excitement in some deep, dark pleasure centre in
my brain. It was such an object of unaffordable techno-lust that the
effects have obviously scarred me for life :-)

Andrew McP
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 3:10:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

>I had a 486sx2/50 (no math coprocessor) and doom1 S/W ran like a dog with 2
>legs, it was literally a slide show. I didn't upgrade until the P90 was a
>year old. who could afford it back then?


in 93 I ordered a p90 the same week they came out. I was about to
order a p60 or 486-100 and they started selling the 90 so I took the
plunge and go it. I saved up a LONG time for it though. I paid 3800
shipped. Canadian for a Gateway 2000 P90, 8 megs ram, 540 meg hd, 17"
monitor,no sound card, 2x cdrom, no speakers, no printer, no modem.

Crazy

Then I upgraded from 8 to 16 megs, and paid almost 400 bucks for that.


then agian, way before that, I had a 386-25, 40 meg hd, 2 meg ram, and
it too was almost 4000 bucks.

My first pc was a trs-80. 1000 bucks for a external 5 1/4" drive LOL
I never bought it and got a tape drive instead. had to use the old
style counter to line up the tape before you loaded it.
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 3:20:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Quoth The Raven "RayO" <Menothere@nohog.net> in
C_HMc.5999$qT3.4835@nwrddc03.gnilink.net
> "Highlandish" <ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:2mgvn7FmlmlcU2@uni-berlin.de...
>
> >
> > I had a 486sx2/50 (no math coprocessor) and doom1 S/W ran like a
> > dog with 2 legs, it was literally a slide show. I didn't upgrade
> > until the P90 was a year old. who could afford it back then?
>
> You probably had a bad chipset, it made a big difference back
> then, even 486sx should've done better than that poor dog.
> I ran it on 33/386DX and 486/66DX2. On the 386 it
> chopped, not a complete slide show, but not
> pleasant either. On the 4/66 it rocked.
>
>
> RayO

both your pc's had a math coprocessor in them, that's why they ran better.
the sx models were severely hampered with out one

--
I put tape on my mirrors at my house so I won't accidentally walk
through them into another dimension. - Steven Wright

Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 3:20:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Highlandish" <ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2mhqdlFmv3trU2@uni-berlin.de...
> Quoth The Raven "RayO" <Menothere@nohog.net> in
> C_HMc.5999$qT3.4835@nwrddc03.gnilink.net
> > "Highlandish" <ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:2mgvn7FmlmlcU2@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > >
> > > I had a 486sx2/50 (no math coprocessor) and doom1 S/W ran like a
> > > dog with 2 legs, it was literally a slide show. I didn't upgrade
> > > until the P90 was a year old. who could afford it back then?
> >
> > You probably had a bad chipset, it made a big difference back
> > then, even 486sx should've done better than that poor dog.
> > I ran it on 33/386DX and 486/66DX2. On the 386 it
> > chopped, not a complete slide show, but not
> > pleasant either. On the 4/66 it rocked.
> >
> >
> > RayO
>
> both your pc's had a math coprocessor in them, that's why they ran better.
> the sx models were severely hampered with out one
>

Wow, I'm impressed, you are absolutely right. I did have a math
coprocessor in my 386, I needed it for some other work.

RayO
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 11:56:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

It is interesting that they left the x800 PE data out of the last
few benchmarks.

Why would someone running an unbiased test publish partial results?


"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
news:tVDLc.60$or1.20@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy
>
> Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny
> version was $345 shipped from provantage).
>
> rms
>
>
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 12:58:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Blig Merk left a note on my windscreen which said:

> > iD games are OpenGL, not D3D.
>
> This is...

Didn't get much further than this. Now back into the killfile you go.
--
Stoneskin

[Insert sig text here]
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 8:09:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Quoth The Raven "Newf !!!" <usenet42@hotmail.com> in
b4k7g0lnuosfvtpsnsltnrbtjq4uk4lj3q@4ax.com
> >I had a 486sx2/50 (no math coprocessor) and doom1 S/W ran like a dog
> >with 2 legs, it was literally a slide show. I didn't upgrade until
> >the P90 was a year old. who could afford it back then?
>
>
> in 93 I ordered a p90 the same week they came out. I was about to
> order a p60 or 486-100 and they started selling the 90 so I took the
> plunge and go it. I saved up a LONG time for it though. I paid 3800
> shipped. Canadian for a Gateway 2000 P90, 8 megs ram, 540 meg hd, 17"
> monitor,no sound card, 2x cdrom, no speakers, no printer, no modem.
>
> Crazy
>
> Then I upgraded from 8 to 16 megs, and paid almost 400 bucks for that.
>
>
> then agian, way before that, I had a 386-25, 40 meg hd, 2 meg ram, and
> it too was almost 4000 bucks.
>
> My first pc was a trs-80. 1000 bucks for a external 5 1/4" drive LOL
> I never bought it and got a tape drive instead. had to use the old
> style counter to line up the tape before you loaded it.

by the time I cold afford the p90, I was like all techy and look at me, I
have a Pentium. I visited my mum because she bought a new pc for herself,
and bugger it all, she had a p2-266, and she didn't even know how to use it
and all she wanted was to type letters and do the accounting. FFS! I felt so
small after that.

--
Some people practice what they preach, others just practice preaching.

Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 9:28:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

you would have been really really! jealous of my DX4/100 then :) 

--
Tony DiMarzio
djtone81@hotmail.com
djraid@comcast.net
"Andrew MacPherson" <andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:memo.20040725114640.3812A@address_disguised.address_disguised...
> In article <C_HMc.5999$qT3.4835@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>, Menothere@nohog.net
> (RayO) wrote:
>
> > On the 4/66 it rocked.
>
> It's rather sad, but even after all these years the phrase "DX2/66" still
> causes a little twinge of excitement in some deep, dark pleasure centre in
> my brain. It was such an object of unaffordable techno-lust that the
> effects have obviously scarred me for life :-)
>
> Andrew McP
!