GF 3 worth it?

[jerry557]

The GeForce 3 cards will hit most shelves around April 20th and the price will be $529. (Which is less then what the GF2's debuted at).

The $529 question is, is this card worth that much money. If you are a hardcore gamer or a tech junkie then your mouth will drool over this card and it's features but your mouth will probably hit the ground when you see the price.

I do not go along with the argument that it isn't worth it yet. Remember that you can do more with your computer than play games on it. This card will improve video all-round on your system. Simulations will look crisper and not jagged. And I have heard that some video game manufactures are planning on putting out patches so current games can enjoy some of the GF3 benefits.

When it all comes down to it. If you have the money...buy it. If you don't, no big deal. Yes, there are people out there that will shell out $529 for this card. If you buy it today you can be pretty much assured you are well ahead of the pack and won't need to upgrade for a good 2 or more years! If you want to save money; aution off your older card on Ebay or sell it to a friend. (IE: I can sell a GeForce 2 Ultra for $200 and then I would only be spending $330 for a GeForce 3.) But wait too long and the value of the GF2 Ultra will go down.

 

[machow]

NVidia is monopolising the gaming market... one day it would become Microsoft and people will start complaining about NVidia's monopoly and their bad corporate practises... yada yada. I have to agree human beings are the hardest speices in the world to understand.

BTW Matrox rulz...

-------------
This site is cool.

 

[jerry557]

What people don't understand is that there are 3 different kinds of monopolies. First there is the illegal type where the company uses illegal practices to dominate the market and destroy competition. The 2nd kind is a regulated one by the government (ie: some utilities; the postal service; etc.). And the 3rd is a legal monopoly. Why is it illegal if the great majority of people want a product from 1 company?

I can start a hog dog stand to beat the competition across the street. What if I offer a high quality product and now everyone starts buying only my hot dogs. What happens next? The competition either has to find a better product or they go out of business. That is not an illegal monopoly. That is similar to what Microsoft and now nVidia are. Windows is purchased by practically 80% of the PC market and the reason is because WE ALL wanted that same product.

 

[machow]

I think you should add this post to the other thread (ATi, matrox.... vs nvidia and 3dfx) too.

Fact is, is that performance gain and feature improvement really worth another $150-200? It's far too much. What should be done instead is push down older models and get the Geforce 3 to market at around $350 at most. Why %$#$# high at $579????

-------------
This site is cool.

 

[Guest]

I disagree about Microsoft. They did NOT rise to the top because of superior technology. A majority of people bought their product, yes, but not because it was superior. No, Microsoft has consistently used an inferior product to beat out a superior one. You can't exactly knock them for this as it shows they are good at running their business and working the market, but please don't give them credit they don't deserve. Superior technology has never been an MS strong point.

Once they got to the top, and sometimes on the way up, they used their position to prevent competition from ever forming, and to undermine what competition they did have in areas like browser technology. This is the illegal part, and I am in full support of laws that prevent this kind of business practice.

Now this is different that simply building such a good product that nobody can ever touch you. I applaud companies that manage to do that. Microsoft's business practices tend to go along other lines. Take the browser war for example. It used to be that most all people used Netscape. Microsoft came along and made Internet Explorer, but it wasn't as good. Microsoft revised IE, but it still wasn't as good, so they started including it with Windows. This is where the part about abusing their position comes in. Windows is included on basically every PC sold today, and Microsoft knew that soon they would have a major market share with IE, even though it was inferior. Once they had this, they started monkeying around with web standards and adding proprietary features to IE that Netscape couldn't use. (I won't even get started on Java.) Now Netscape has been robbed of its main revenue source (they had to match Microsoft's "free" price) and has a difficult time competing with IE because of MS's standards manipulations. Jump forward to today and... tada! Microsoft owns the browser market. Netscape is not dead and may make a comeback, but it will be a long hard battle, and not once was this because Microsoft produced a superior product. (Their were also some internal disturbances/bad decisions inside of Netscape–I am not saying they did everything perfectly.)

Regards,
Warden

 

[Guest]

As for the GeForce 3 being worth it... I think it is. I also think the price will be a little lower. Hercules lists their 3D Prophet 3 as costing $529--but who buys straight from the company? If that's the list price the street price should be under $500 right from the start. How much under I am not sure, but the 3D Prophet II lists on Hercules' site for $499.95. Pricewatch has it for $414 OEM.

Remember that the GF 2 Ultra represents the last of an older technology. It will not fully support games of the near future. The GF 3 is brand new technology and will fully support all games for some time. When given a choice between "last of the old" and "first of the new", the new is almost always better for the long term, even if there isn't much difference in their performance on today's stuff. Since you end up replacing your graphics card often enough as it is, I prefer to go for the one that will carry the longest.

Cheers,
Warden

 

[machow]

On the infamous browser war, I have few points to acknowledge:

1. People have the choice to use the web browser. It sits there, but you can choose to use it or not. If you are not happy with it just trash it aside and download Netscape and use it. Netscape had superior market share, but they still lost out. A program is included free in your operating system, and you are complaining about it. It's like saying a guy sending you a sample of shampoo at your doorstep and you claim that guy using evil business pratises. This is normal. It's legal.

2. Standards. It was thought that IE put standards not supported by Netscape to trash it. OK, how about the other way around? IE supported many features that Netscape did not support, and Netscape instead did not want to support what IE did. They both suck. But let's take a look at CSS. CSS was not supported by Netscape, and we must admit that CSS is a great way of simplifying a uniform website. Imagine life without CSS.

3. They're both free, what are you fighting for? It's not like you are paying anything. Besides some hard disk space.

BTW, I'm just a kid, and I have first hand on computers after the war. Correct this immature one.

-------------
This site is cool.

 

[HolyGrenade]

I know its free and all and from a consumer perspective it is good. However, microsofts intentions were far more malicous.

They made the browser a free include in the OS to destroy the competition, not to improve the market.

With the Case of IBM's OS2, MS changed their contracts with the System vendors saying if they included OS2 based systems in their product range, future business with MS may be difficult. Thats almost raqueteering.


<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>

 

[Guest]

Well I ain't exactly an old man myself but I will fire a few remarks back at you:

1. Sure people have a choice. And people are lazy. Companies know people are lazy so they use advertizing to get their attention, then make their product as easy to get as possible. Microsoft did this, but then invisibly delivered their product directly to people, via a method that was available to them only because of their monopoly position in the OS market--a method that is not at all available to any other company. Lets say that your shampoo salesman also owns UPS, which we'll pretend owns 85% of the shipping business, and he uses his position to deliver shampoo to every doorstep in the country (but won't do so for anybody else). Everybody else wanting to sell shampoo has to hope the customer picks up their catalog and orders it. This shampoo guy can also use the money from his shipping business to subsidize free shampoo for the nation until all the independent shampoo companies go out of business. This is a better (though extremely cheesy :tongue: ) illustration of Microsoft's browser tactics.

2. I am a little too fuzzy on the web standards issue to discuss it in great detail. I will read up on it a little and post if I find something interesting.

As for ActiveX and Java... Microsoft licensed Java and then changed it around. This created sort of a double-standard in Java. Netscape supported the true Java, as defined by the owner, Sun Microsystems, but couldn't support all Java because of Microsoft's confusion tactics. Of course, Microsoft comes forward with their own, proprietary solution, ActiveX, to do what Java did in the first place. Combine this with the fact that Microsoft--again--was able to use their position to place ActiveX support on every desktop for free.

I also don't know enough about CSS to make a statement, but I will take your word for it. Microsoft certainly does have its points of innovation, and CSS may be one of them.

3. They are both free, but we both know there is no such thing as a free lunch. Microsoft makes its money for IE by selling Windows, but Netscape doesn't have that option. Selling stuff below cost to kill off the competition is a very old monopoly tactic, and is defiantly illegal. That is why Microsoft labeled IE as a "Windows upgrade", because as long as it's a part of Windows, and MS makes money on Windows, then it's not illegal to give it away. This became a big point of argument in the anti-trust trial--was IE really an integral part of Windows, or was Microsoft trying to make it look that way to conceal an anti-competitive business practice.

In the end, I am arguing about it because I want any company that can make a good enough product to be able to compete with Microsoft. That may mean things like paying for a browser in the short term, but in the long term having competition pays off for the customer.

Regards,
Warden

 

[HolyGrenade]

Regarding CSS, What versions of the browsers are you talking about?

'Cos I can tell you that IE support for CSS isn't half as good as mozilla.

CSS is a W3C Standard. Microsoft kind of just ignores the standards (I know netscape does the same, but not as blatently).

<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>

 

[machow]

This is completely unrelated to Geforce 3, I'll start a new post.

-------------
This site is cool.

 

[Guest]

Hehe, probably a good idea.

 

[machow]

Others >> Others > browser wars

-------------
This site is cool.

 

[Guest]

My concern about GeForce3 is... Well, recall the GeForce2 family. Didn't it start with MX, then GTS, then Pro, and then Ultra? Seeing as the GeForce3's advertized bus speed is in fact lower than GeForce2 Ultra's, it makes me think that the particular brand of GeForce3 that we're talking about is to the future GeForce3's what MX is to GeForce2. It is probably a lower end bait for the new family, and will be replaced _early on_. I'm not sure it's gonna last...

Leo

 

[HolyGrenade]

The GTS was the first of the GF2 series, then MX, then Ultra, then Pro. Although, spead wise from slowest to fastest it goes mx, gts, pro, ultra.

The mx is slower than a Geforce 1 DDR. But, you are right in thinking it will be one of the slower GF3's. The next one will probably be on smaller wafers with a lower heat dissapation and a faster clock speed.


<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>

 

[Guest]

Thank you for the correction.

My reasoning is based on the following assumptions (which might be proven wrong):

(1) The first (and the slowest) of the GeForce3 family is gonna be comparable in performance with GeForce2 Ultra for the currently existing applications. But more expensive, because the potential for newer applications is added to the value.

(2) When new applications show up that use the full suite of GeForce3 new features, there will be better versions of GeForce3 available.

Then it would make sense to stay with GeForce2 until two things happen: (1) new applications show up that use GeForce3 special features, and (2) better versions of GeForce3 arrive. But, once again, my reasoning depends on these two events coming along at about the same time (which might not be the case).

Leo

 

[Kronos]

But the market was improved by a company who included a browser that integrated far better with less crashing as they knew the OS better than any other browser maker. After all...It`s Microsofts OS to do with as a free market allows.

I want to die like my Grandfather...in my sleep...not screaming in terror like his passengers.

 

[jerry557]

I agree. It's Microsoft's product, they can do what they want with it. And you don't HAVE TO use IE when using windows. You can still use Netscape and download it for free.

Netscape thinks it is unfair? Why don't they make an OS to compete with Microsoft? You see; they go crying to the government instead of trying to beat the competition themselves. That is why I don't like Netscape.

 

[HolyGrenade]

Go to:
Others >> Others > browser wars
Browser Discussion is continued there.


<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>

 

[JoeHead]

<A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/vidcards/nvidia/gf3ref/" target="_new">http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/vidcards/nvidia/gf3ref/</A>

<b><A HREF="http://www.seti.tomshardware.com/" target="_new">How fast is your PC</A></b>

 

[blah]

"I want to die like my Grandfather...in my sleep...not screaming in terror like his passengers. " ... hehehe, thats a good one.... hehehe

Post, we'll do the "search"...

 

[Guest]

Yes, I agree with you. The key to your statements was, "Then it would make sense to stay with GeForce2." If you have a GeForce 2 right now, then I see no reason to jump up and buy a GeForce 3. My recomendation from the start of this has been that if you have a TNT2 or older class card, or for some other reason just want to upgrade RIGHT NOW, then go with the GeForce 3. Its usefulness will last longer.

Regards,
Warden

 

[noko]

Here is a interesting review with the GF3 from nVidia reference card sent to the Adrenaline Vault(??? never heard of them before). Anyways take it for what it is worth.
<A HREF="http://www.avault.com/hardware/getreview.asp?review=geforce3" target="_new">http://www.avault.com/hardware/getreview.asp?review=geforce3</A>

 

[Guest]

I would say stay away from geforce 3!!!
when games start needing geforce 3 you COULD BUY SOMETHING BETTER with less US $$$ !!!

 

[noko]

Interesting that the Radeon smokes the GF3 in Unreal Tournament both in 16bit and 32 bit:
<A HREF="http://www.avault.com/hardware/avscreenshot.asp?pic=geforce3&num=16&content=6" target="_new">http://www.avault.com/hardware/avscreenshot.asp?pic=geforce3&num=16&content=6</A>
<A HREF="http://www.avault.com/hardware/avscreenshot.asp?pic=geforce3&num=17&content=6" target="_new">http://www.avault.com/hardware/avscreenshot.asp?pic=geforce3&num=17&content=6</A>

Whats is going on here???