Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why the 8500 vs GF3 debate doesnt matter

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 17, 2001 8:14:26 PM

You all KNOW that it doesnt matter right now. You might need a new card to be ready for the upcoming game-release season (Wolfy!!!!!!!!!!) but regardless of which one you buy today you can throw it in the trash this time next year.

That's right, we are ALL going to be buying a flippin $600 card just before the new DOOM comes out...so save your $250-$350.

That aside, I'm glad to see the 8500 going neck and neck with the GF3. I got a bit worried when 3dfx fell out of the biz. Competition is alive and well. But remember you ATI fans that the 8500 is competing with the "ultra" version of nVidia's product. This means they have about 5 months to get those drivers together before nVidia's Spring lineup gets released. The 8500 might hang with a GF3 but how will it fare against a GF4?

More about : 8500 gf3 debate doesnt matter

Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
October 17, 2001 9:48:17 PM

you need to realize one thing Smilin....we dont need a new card for every new game that comes out.
October 17, 2001 10:16:23 PM

And there's always overclocking.

U got a problem?! Then dial 1800-328-7448!
Related resources
October 17, 2001 11:22:20 PM

I beg to differ my computer enthusiast friend. Since when did overlocking ever beat added instructions, more pipelines, more memory...etc...you see where im going with this, RIGHT?

Otherwise why do ATI and NVIDIA design cards with new technology why not just make the gf4 a gf3 o'clocked:) 
October 17, 2001 11:37:15 PM

Eh? Where did that come from? He didn't say overclocking is better than a improvements to the gpu etc... he just said "There's always overclocking."

And overclocking a card is a valid way of eeking out just enough performance to make a new game playable.

As far as Nvidia and ATI, you'll notice they've been releasing higher clocked versions of their old products for a while now. TNT2 vs. TNT2 Ultra. Geforce2 to Pro and Ultra versions. ATI Radeon's quietly getting their core and memory clock bumped up.

And if ATI and Nvidia do it, it's good enough for me ;p

"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
a b U Graphics card
October 17, 2001 11:46:25 PM

It will matter in 3 months when the price drops.

Back to you Tom...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
October 18, 2001 12:45:29 AM

I don't think anyone is gonna be needing to tweak an ATi 8500 or a GF3 to make next years games work.....

well, unless they still refuse to give up those Sears & Roebuck CPUs (just a joke, no golden bricks please)
October 18, 2001 1:24:30 AM

But if they don't only use their GPU for games.....Also, it's simply fun to overclock. You should see people's reactions when you say you have a water cooling system to cool down your computer because it's so powerful and are considerinf Freon (not that I am actually:) ).

U got a problem?! Then dial 1800-328-7448!
October 18, 2001 1:27:23 AM

Oh, and about the Gf4- I don't think radeon 8500 will be able to compete, since accroding to some released specs Gf4 will be nFinite FX2 at 300 (imagine- a Gf3 at 300MHz, but even better), 667MHz RAM, 128Mb DDR, and a whole lotta other stuff that will probably make Wusy jack off;)

U got a problem?! Then dial 1800-328-7448!
October 18, 2001 1:29:04 AM

Personaly, I'd recomend a liquid nitrogen coolant system. Works well for me. Only way I can run my old 486 at 2.2 GHZ

(Just kidding, in case you were wondering)

60 FPS, 70 FPS, 80 FPS Crash!
Daylight comes and I have to go to work :frown:
October 18, 2001 1:30:46 AM

Ok, I thought u were serious- was about to ask for a benchmark:) 

U got a problem?! Then dial 1800-328-7448!
October 18, 2001 1:41:22 AM

It starts up Windows 98 in under 10 minutes. That a good benchmark?

60 FPS, 70 FPS, 80 FPS Crash!
Daylight comes and I have to go to work :frown:
October 18, 2001 1:54:12 AM

hahahaha ROFL. That;s very fast;)

U got a problem?! Then dial 1800-328-7448!
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
October 18, 2001 6:22:01 AM

U suck at lying bront :p 
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
October 18, 2001 8:09:39 AM

You rule MAN, you just rule :)  :)  :) 




<font color=red>Apple</font color=red> <font color=blue>inside</font color=blue>, <font color=green>idiot</font color=green> <font color=purple>outside</font color=purple>...
October 18, 2001 3:08:44 PM

<weird> I buying the ATI AIW radeon 8500DV cos of firewire ports, remote control and cos of the remote control. Did i mention about the remote control? oh ya also cos of the firewire ports. *sigh* firewire ports... did i ever tell you the time about firewire ports.. woo those were some crazy times i tells ya. *falls asleep like grandpa simpson and dreams about firewire scanners and firewire harddrives and firewire mice and firewire video cameras* *wakes up* ahhh firewire ports ya firewire ports.. those were the days... and the remote control... that was something ... </weird>

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
October 18, 2001 6:19:24 PM

ROFLMFAO Grampa simpson cracks me up. "Craaaaaap."

That's all well and good, but you better hope your next vid card has firewire as well. I just kinda find it an odd place to put a firewire port... it's like having a mouse port on your sound card or something.
October 18, 2001 6:23:12 PM

hey, that would be so cool, a mouse port on your sound card :smile: , how about a USB plug on your headphones too. Actually the firewire does serve a very useful purpose especially if you are into doing video's using Digital video camer'a and or Digital Camera's. So yes it does make alot of sense for a Video Card designed around doing video's to have a built in FireWire to work with the hardware onboard.
October 18, 2001 6:23:19 PM

Every new game? no. Doom 3? yep. A GF3 is proably going to swing some 20 fps with the settings cranked up on that engine.

(Yoda voice) "You will, you will."
October 18, 2001 6:28:22 PM

Do you have proof of that statement?

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 18, 2001 6:38:13 PM

Its a pretty educated guess. I can't remember if I read it in one of his forum postings on slashdot or in his plan file but the Carmack has already said a GF3 is going to be the bare minumum video card to run Doom. The Doom engine is not designed to pull 60+ frames per second. It will some day I'm sure, but not when it's released.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
October 18, 2001 6:52:49 PM

Smilin means it will receive that frame rate at 12x9 :p 

btw, give us a link to that Doom game you talk of... we will be the judge of this :) 
October 18, 2001 7:06:15 PM

(Ren voice) Where have you beeen man?

id software's upcoming sequel to Doom!?!? Cnet has some video footage of the engine in action. It was shown off at the macworld expo or something. I'm at work so I can't go surfing all over the place for it, sorry.

It looks real. When you compare the graphics to todays best stuff like wolfenstein (q3) or the unreal engines it's like listening to a telephone speaker and then switching to full dolby surround.

Have you seen the in-game avi footage in diablo II for instance? It's like that only in real time! ALL lighting is dynamic...no more lightmaps for maps and dynamic lights for objects.

The technological jump is similar to the difference between full 32bit OpenGL Quake III versus the original 8bit non-opengl quake I.
October 18, 2001 7:18:04 PM

The Q3 engine is about the worst current one around...

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 18, 2001 7:30:45 PM

Please argue your point, Troll.
October 18, 2001 7:45:55 PM

Oh, sorry. I don't know why I didn't say more than that.

First off, can you tell me whether or not the game Alice used that engine? I haven't been able to tell for sure.
Second, I'm not saying the engine is bad, just how it was actually used in Q3. A couple of other games have used the engine better.

Quake 3 has a very low poly count. That means that everything is really simple, and a lot of creative ideas wouldn't work. Compare the buildings in Q3 to the ones in UT. Huge difference.

Have a look at the terrain generator. I don't know if you can really call it that, since most Q3 maps are indoor, but there are a few instances of rock, lava, etc. It does not have realistic angles at all.

The lighting in the game is terrible. Ambient lighting is passable, but light sources are not well directed, and shadows are not cast realistically. Look at the jump pads (or whatever they're called, can't remember). The lights on them are very dull, not at all like there's an actual light source coming out of them.

There are a few more things I could talk about, but I'll play the game tonight and refresh my memory.

Conversely, the engine has some good things in it. The way bullets go through water, for instance, looks very nice. I think the way Tribes 2 did it is a bit more realistic, but the Q3 way just looks better.

And I forgot what I was going to say. Oh, yes.

Fire/fog effects are not that great. The fire is two-dimensional and lifeless, and the fog is not very well textured. Instead of a cloud around you, it seems more like a painted backdrop that moves with you.


I know I shouldn't compare this with games that came out much later (Tribes 2, B&W, etc). Perhaps I have, and I'm sorry. The reference to Tribes to was merely a contrast of two styles, not really saying one was was better than the other.
UT came out at around the same time, so I am safe in comparing the two of them.

One last thing. I've noticed that higher resolution and 32-bit colors does not seem to make much of a difference over the default 640x480x16. That's very odd, and could be an ID10t error, not an ID error.


EDIT:
I hope that's enough, I didn't realize how long my post was :-Þ
<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by FatBurger on 10/18/01 12:47 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 18, 2001 8:37:49 PM

No one can say anything about a game that is one year from being released, ESPECIALLY system specs.
I doubt they would make the GF3 useless then for D3, cuz it is a serious gaming card, with so many features for next-generation. Man it's just unthinkable to get low FPS with that card. Just think about it, we've reached a point where technology has become unbeatable. Systems over 1ghz are doing anything without probs, especially AthlonXPs, GF3 cards are designed for expendability in games and longevity!
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
October 19, 2001 12:33:53 AM

*XNOR slams down the period key on that one* .
October 19, 2001 1:17:46 AM

Geforce 3 is programable, so if they make the game right, and tweak the drivers right the card can last a good amount of time. My guess is regular geforce 3 will last 2-2.5 years being able to run any game in 1024x768 and still get a good frame rate. Heck right now in Quake 3 running 1280x1024 I get spikes over 300 FPS, my typical FPS is 100-200 depending on map and whats on my screen. So Ti500 should last a tad longer than current Geforce 3, and what ever is next will probably not pioneer new technologies, just high clock frequencies, and more rendering pipelines.
October 20, 2001 12:25:13 AM

I take it you agree on my point?
Finally some people think like me... No card is bought newly to last less than a year. That would be getting a Ti500 and think in 6 months it's dead... those who say that are asses. It lasts at least 2 years damn it!!!
October 23, 2001 1:52:04 PM

Sorry about the delay in replying...I was getting married :) 

I am quite certain that the GF3 will have adequate performance at best for Doom 3. This isn't due to the GF3 being a bad card at all. It's just that John Carmack writes his engines in such a way that hardware has to "grow into it". I just picked up a Titanium 500 this weekend. The [-peep-] is really, really fast. However, I stand by my prediction that it will not be fast enough come one year from now.
October 23, 2001 2:34:45 PM

First, to answer your question: Alice does use the q3 engine.

Now, when comparing engines I can only speak with experience on the following: Q1-3, Unreal, Unreal Tournament (slightly souped up unreal engine), Halflife (very souped up q1 engine), Tribes 2, Lithtech 1 and Serious Sam.

Of these I would have to say that Q3 pushes the most polygons without a doubt. I think it has been some time since you've seen Q3 working. Go have a second look. Be sure all the graphics settings are up especially geometric detail. The curved surfaces in q3 have easily double the polygons of a curved surface any other game. Serious Sam has some really nice features like bump mapping and whatnot but doesn't push nearly the polygons as q3.

As for fogging. Hmm. Seems decent enough to me. It's not really an outdoor game so you don't quite get the same effect as fog in say tribes 2 (which is done very well).

Those jump pads you speak of don't actually light. There just procedural textures with an "invisible" lighsource placed a few game-units above them.

You mention 16 bit versus 32 bit... 16bit is nearly enough to display the needed colors, 32 bit is only a little better. The big difference comes in when you blend. If you find a spot where say 3 different light sources blend you will notice it almost looks like 256color gradients when you are in 16 bit mode. 32 will blend smoothly. You'll see this same effect in most other games as well. Your eye can only distinguish up to about 24 bit color. The extra precision is just used so when you blend multiple lightsources you don't get too much rounding and end up with nasty gradients.

I've never really played q3 in anything less that 1024x768 32 bit color. I play it in 1280x1024 now (just picked up a GF3 Titanium 500 over the weekend. Didn't want to wait for the ATI drivers).

Comparing the GAME of q3 versus UT is almost a religious discussions so I'll stay out of it, but engine-wise I'd say the q3 engine mops the floor with the UT engine. Serious Sam and Tribes2 are both geared towards outdoors so it's kinda apples to oranges. The terrain does look pretty good in Team arena though.

What kinda of card are you running this all on anyway?
October 23, 2001 3:30:03 PM

congrats!

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>
Related resources
!