GeForce 4 Ti4600 SUCKS!!!

[Willamette_sucks]

Please excuse the rediculous title, but thats the only way I could get your attention. All the hype and craze over the new graphics cards, mainly the geforce 3 and 4 ti series, and also the R8500, has left me wondering... what ever happened to the Voodoo series? Is the Voodoo 5 5500 still a good card compared to some of the newer ones? Does anyone know how much these things cost now? Or is the Voodoo 5 5500 completely outdated and cant stand up to any of the newer nvidia or radeon products?

its not that intel CANT make a good processor, its that they just dont try<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Willamette_sucks on 03/02/02 02:43 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Willamette_sucks]

1

its not that intel CANT make a good processor, its that they just dont try

 

[Willamette_sucks]

2


its not that intel CANT make a good processor, its that they just dont try

 

[AMD_Man]

Yes, the Voodoo5 can't even compare to these cards. All the new cards are 300-400% faster in most games.

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

 

[dpaige]

I feel the GeForce 4 is the hardware version of Windows 98:Second Edition. Why don't they just wait a little longer before release a card that is a little faster? And when are they going to start using 3dfx's technologies they got in the settlement?

 

[Willamette_sucks]

Oh my god. You can't be serious. First of all you simply can't compare OS's and graphics cards. Second of all, Win98 and Win98 second edition were almost exactly the same, thats just how M$ OS's go, but the geforce 3 and geforce 4 are not nearly as similar. From the looks of it you have not read the geforce 4 article here at TH. Do. Its called "PC graphics beyond XBOX, nVidia releases the geforce4", or something like that. The geforce 4 ti 4600 is not just a little bit better than the geforce 3 ti500. It beats it out in every bm (obviously) by a very significant amount, espcially new titles with directx8 support. The main reason for this is because it has 2 vertex and pixel shaders instead of the geforce 3's 1. Know what youre talking about before you completely ignore the 30%-50% performance increase the 4 has over the 3(numbers may not be exact, i didnt have time to jot down the scores and compare them, if you do know the exact range please list it, but i am sure it is significant and probably close to what i have posted)

its not that intel CANT make a good processor, its that they just dont try

 

[AMD_Man]

The main reason for this is because it has 2 vertex and pixel shaders instead of the geforce 3's 1.

Actually, that's completely false. The performance boost we're seeing in the GF4 isn't from the second shader, it's from the enhanced LMAII. Most games don't even use the shaders. It's definitely LMAII that's giving the boost.

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

 

[Willamette_sucks]

my bad, i am aware that older and even most current games dont even use the shaders, but what about titles like AquaMark and future titles, then wouldnt it make a difference?

its not that intel CANT make a good processor, its that they just dont try

 

[AMD_Man]

my bad, i am aware that older and even most current games dont even use the shaders, but what about titles like AquaMark and future titles, then wouldnt it make a difference?

It would. The performance boost will be even more pronounced in the future.

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

 

[dpaige]

30%-50% increase for what purpose? Like there are any games anywhere close to taking advantage of it? Its overkill in my opinion. They could have waited and release it down the line. If there were games that justified buying a GeForce 4 over a GeForce 3 I migh tagree with you but there aren't.

 

[dpaige]

And personally I feel benchmarks are fill of sh*t. How much better does it look or feel when playing the game? I bet you couldn't even tell the difference. You'd be too into the game to probably notice any major differences. Everyone is so stuck on benchmarks.

 

[Willamette_sucks]

Benchmarks are mainly to tell you how much headroom you have. Generally, and this depends on the person, but 60fps and higher is good. If you get 120 in Q3A at 1600x1200(no AA) then you know youve got some headroom for the next big title from Id(quake 4)

its not that intel CANT make a good processor, its that they just dont try

 

[AMD_Man]

Benchmarks are mainly to tell you how much headroom you have. Generally, and this depends on the person, but 60fps and higher is good. If you get 120 in Q3A at 1600x1200(no AA) then you know youve got some headroom for the next big title from Id(quake 4)

True, but I'd rather wait for the game and then get the card, rather than the opposite so I can be assured the performance will be decent.

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

 

[flamethrower205]

Dude, a game set at max res and settings on a gf3 vs gf4 will look no different, assuming they are running higher than 70FPS. What benches show is the processing power of teh GPU, cause guess what, in 1 or 2 years it will matter for the GF4 when it's old. In addition, people want to see how well it will perform in other tasks, such as graphics design, where there is no thing as powerful enough gpu. Oh, and want to see me make CS run at 10 FPS on GF3 using super high polygon models that are lifelike? There already are games that GF3 has tough time w/- namely UT2, and in some instances Serious Sam 2, as well as others.

Sig of the week.

 

[Willamette_sucks]

graphic design (3D rendering) is mainly a function of the processor. My friends mom is a graphic design artist and she has a Macintosh G4 867MHz, but only a geforce 2 MX440. She has over a gig of ram though. But its only pc133 ram. She couldve gotten a geforce 3 but it wouldnt have helped for what she does. She uses alot of photoshop stuff. And CS at 10 fps on a geforce 3?!?!?! where did you get that?

its not that intel CANT make a good processor, its that they just dont try

 

[eden]

That's sad indeed. Play Flight Simulator 2002 to see how bad the GF3 can go at max settings in city, with full ATC.
GF3s were a novelty, not a performer, they were to introduce the next wave of technology. The GF4 is the performance one. Personally I'd like a Ti4600, to see when exactly will it peak in one game. There are many that stutter on GF3s, I dunno why but they do. Play Sacrifice, and have over 20 monsters fighting on screen.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!

 

[AMD_Man]

graphic design (3D rendering) is mainly a function of the processor.

That's not true. Professional OpenGL graphics cards accelerate 3D rendering significantly. Flamethrower would know, he has a Quadro DCC.

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

 

[flamethrower205]

Thanks AMD. Willamette, let me explain. The final rendering process is done via the processor- true as you said (although there is a software whose current name escapes me that renders via vid card). Software rendering is used because it's more accurate. However, having an ultra powerful GPU is key in WORKING with models, because I really hate it when I'm moving a polygon, and it stutters because the GPU isn't fast enough. This is where fast vid cards come in, assuming you set the viewport rendering to use the vid card (as AMD said, I have a Quadro DCC, and use its power w/ Maxtreme drivers cause that just blows away my CPU rendering). Thus, vid card is important. I assume your friend has her graphics program set to CPU rendering, cause if she set it to d3d/ogl, it would suck on an MX. What I meant by making CS run at 10FPS is if I had billion polygon models- that's tough to process.
Eden, it is somewhat true what you say in that the GF4 is the raw processing giant, but the GF3 is excellent because of all its optimizations and new utilization of technologies (as you stated). So far this seems to have made up for quite a bit, considering the age of the GF3, yet its performance in modern games.

Sig of the week.

 

[flamethrower205]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that in progs such as 3d s max, u can have viewports render the scene as it would be seen using vid card, and furthermore the Reactor plugin (I just love that sexy physics thang) uses vid card to render your animation.

Sig of the week.

 

[Oni]

......for the next big title from Id(quake 4)

Actually I've heard no mention of any Quake 4 yet, Id software's next big game is going to be Doom 3 which has been talked about since the Geforce 3 came out. I coulda sworn everyone knew that

"Why can't I be the man? I mean, I DO have harmony balls..." -epoth

 

[Matisaro]

A little faster?

Running with ffaa ON as fast as the gf3 WITHOUT IT, is MASSIVELY faster.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

 

[prepsmdker]

This is kinda fun
anyway, I believe to clarify Quake 4... It's going to be produced outside of ID, using the Doom 3 engine. It's more similar to how RtCW used the Quake 3 Engine, but was produced by another company with help from ID.
Ask me for a link, and I won't be able to give, it's been rumored(nothing official of course, as even DOOM 3 is clouded in mystery) and it's been a long time since I've heard about it.

btw, Don't the Voodoo 5's still limit textures to 256x256? If only 3DFX would have learned to fix this(sooner, if they had it in voodoo 5's) they'd still be in the competition... possibly!

Sorry for the rambling... I have to add in my 2 cents too.

 

[AMD_Man]

btw, Don't the Voodoo 5's still limit textures to 256x256? If only 3DFX would have learned to fix this(sooner, if they had it in voodoo 5's) they'd still be in the competition... possibly!

No, this limitation was in the Voodoo3 but the Voodoo4 and 5 support 2048*2048 textures.

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