geforce3 worth the money?

[Guest]

Ive heard alot of things about it, im building a computer
and i just want to make sure to get my money's worth
out of it.

 

[kinney]

I used to use a GF2MX but picked up a GTS from newegg for $65. Not bad.. you won't get any visible improvement going from a MX to GTS and no new efx with a GF3 card unless its Return to Castle Wolfenstein, some said that it looks better with the additional features of teh GF3 (pixel shaders). But for now the GTS is the best for the money, I want a TI200 myself but I'm going to wait until they get cheaper.
Wait till they get cheaper and are used in many more games. The GTS is a visiontek to, I'm fairly impressed with it, its the GTS-V which means its clocked lower than a normal GTS but I've never heard of a GTS-V that can't reach normal GTS speeds (in fact if you take off the fan it reads GTS, as in the normal GTS core). Mine works at 200/333 without any visual flaws.

"dude your getting a dell", is that kid trying to say he wants to stick his 'dell' in you?

 

[ejsmith2]

I almost agree with you.

Right now (and for the past 6months) the only two buys that are worth the money are the MX200 32meg and the Ultra. A MX/GTS/Pro can't handle 64 meg in the first place. The textures are too complex at 1024x768x32, much less 1600x1200x32, with the gpu/mem speeds of anything less than an Ultra. With an MX, you can play at 1024x768x16 with everything cranked down, and maintain playability. With a GTS, you can move up to 32 bit, but in order to keep playable, you'll have to dial down the settings, possibly moving up to medium. With a GTS, you still can't hack it above medium, even overclocked. With a Ultra, you'll stay playable with everything cranked out at 1024x768. That's on every game you can throw at it: Max Payne, Mechwarrior 4, Quake3 (heh.), Unreal Tournament, Castle Wolfenstein, Elite Force, Swat 3, Evolva...

And unless you're playing Max Payne at 1600x1200x32, you won't notice a difference between the Ultra and the Ti500. Both will crank above 30fps, even when there's 32 idiots firing rocket launchers on Unreal Tournament at the same time. That is, as long as you've got a Athlon/P4 that can hack it (>1.1ghz). Although, with the brand-spankin-newest games (like Dr. Wolfen-schteen and Maximum Pain), there will start to be a noticable difference in texture quality at the really high res. At least, from the little bit of visual acuity that I have left.

$34+s/h or $134+s/h.

Anything else is uncivilized.

 

[AMD_Man]

Right now (and for the past 6months) the only two buys that are worth the money are the MX200 32meg and the Ultra. A MX/GTS/Pro can't handle 64 meg in the first place. The textures are too complex at 1024x768x32, much less 1600x1200x32, with the gpu/mem speeds of anything less than an Ultra.

That must be the worst advice I have ever seen!! The MX200 is the worst possible card you can get. It's slower than a TNT2 and it's overpriced for it's performance! What do you mean the GTS or Pro can't handle 64MB? What is that supposed to mean? They can handle it and they do make use of it!! By adding that extra 32MB you decrease access to the AGP bus and therefore improve smoothness. It has nothing to do with the coomplexity of textures but the size. The bigger the textures, the slower the performance. Also the GTS and Pro can easily handle 1024*768*32. Maybe not at 1600*1200 but 1024*768*32 with max settings is great.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor