🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3684F0C1.7F58BD21@pontyraled.freeserve.co.uk>, 
BrucieMoose@pontyraled.freeserve.co.uk Andrew Bruce had these little 
delights to say
> Okay, okay. Does anybody know what *the best* 3D accelerator is? There
> must be one, surely? Or, does the performance of a 3D card depend on the
> system it's running on?
>

Right :-)

A voodoo 2 for OpenGL and 
A TNT Banshee for D3D

-- 
Best Regards
Chris Buckley
www.bbuckley.freeserve.co.uk  ICQ UIN - Available From Homepage

Chris Buckley wrote in message ...
>In article <3684F0C1.7F58BD21@pontyraled.freeserve.co.uk>,
>BrucieMoose@pontyraled.freeserve.co.uk Andrew Bruce had these little
>delights to say
>> Okay, okay. Does anybody know what *the best* 3D accelerator is? There
>> must be one, surely? Or, does the performance of a 3D card depend on the
>> system it's running on?
>>
>
>Right :-)
>
>A voodoo 2 for OpenGL and
>A TNT Banshee for D3D
>

A Banshee normal, connected to 2 voodoo 2's in SLI. Multiply by 9 and have
all connected to 50" flat screen moniters, giving a total viewing area of
about 11250" square, usuing Multi Moniter obviously. You'll need 9 AGP's and
18 PCI's, plus netcard,modem and cound, so 9AGP's and 21 PCI slots, 1 big
motherboard :)
>--
>Best Regards
>Chris Buckley
>www.bbuckley.freeserve.co.uk  ICQ UIN - Available From Homepage

>>> Okay, okay. Does anybody know what *the best* 3D accelerator is? There
>>> must be one, surely? Or, does the performance of a 3D card depend on the
>>> system it's running on?

depends on the system too - my p125 cant give my v2 info fast enough

>A Banshee normal, connected to 2 voodoo 2's in SLI. Multiply by 9 and have
>all connected to 50" flat screen moniters, giving a total viewing area of
>about 11250" square, usuing Multi Moniter obviously. You'll need 9 AGP's
and
>18 PCI's, plus netcard,modem and cound, so 9AGP's and 21 PCI slots, 1 big
>motherboard :)


why not just connect it to a imax cinema screen?

neural implants would be cool too - have to have a good ping tho :v)
  .-----.-------.--------.--------.------.-----.---.
  | e-mail: cools@yourself.viscose.freeserve.co.uk |
  I web:    http://listen.to/cools                 I
  | icq#    20814781                             .-|
  `-----'--: kill "yourself" before replying! :-'`-'

I support the Campaign for Unmetered Telecommunications
              http://www.unmetered.org.uk

>A voodoo 2 for OpenGL and
>A TNT Banshee for D3D


What the hell is a TNT Banshee ?

Andrew Bruce wrote in message
<3684F0C1.7F58BD21@pontyraled.freeserve.co.uk>...
>Okay, okay. Does anybody know what *the best* 3D accelerator is? There
>must be one, surely? Or, does the performance of a 3D card depend on the
>system it's running on?


Get a TNT as most of the new engines coming out soon will be optimised for
opengl and nearly all non-fps games use D3D mostly. The few games that are
glide optimised are fps stuff (quake/q2/unreal) and some older games.

Voodoo 2 is slightly faster on slower processors. Also what is the point of
10430283 fps in quake ? You`d be better off with higher res (especially on
17" +) and better quality picture

In article <3684F0C1.7F58BD21@pontyraled.freeserve.co.uk>, 
BrucieMoose@pontyraled.freeserve.co.uk says...
> Okay, okay. Does anybody know what *the best* 3D accelerator is? There
> must be one, surely? Or, does the performance of a 3D card depend on the
> system it's running on?

Of course it depends on the rest of the systems components, but it also 
depends on your criteria for devising the *BesT* 3D accelerator. For 
Quake and other GLide based games, Voodoo2 is still unsurpassed 
speedwise, given a hefty enough CPU, but TNT is not far behind, and has a 
better quality of image, will support higher resolutions, 3D in a window, 
and will even outrun the V2 on some DirectX based games.

Both is prolly the best option, TNT as a primary card, coupled up to a 
couple of V2's  8^�

This has all got to have the rider 'at the moment' , a new 3Dfx chip is only
a few months away, and an improved TNT (0.25 micron chip) is imminent, along
with who knows what else 'on the horizon'.

I'm gonna go for a Banshee now for the system I'm building, 'cos its cheap ,
and get something better when the card war has settled in a few months.

Seadog

In article <763fcm$5qm$2@bignews.shef.ac.uk>, newsgroupsam@usa.net 
> Voodoo 2 is slightly faster on slower processors. Also what is the point of
> 10430283 fps in quake ? You`d be better off with higher res (especially on
> 17" +) and better quality picture


Bit of a change of tune, heh 

Phil Webb wrote in message ...
>In article <3684F0C1.7F58BD21@pontyraled.freeserve.co.uk>,
>BrucieMoose@pontyraled.freeserve.co.uk says...
>> Okay, okay. Does anybody know what *the best* 3D accelerator is? There
>> must be one, surely? Or, does the performance of a 3D card depend on the
>> system it's running on?
>
>Of course it depends on the rest of the systems components, but it also
>depends on your criteria for devising the *BesT* 3D accelerator. For
>Quake and other GLide based games, Voodoo2 is still unsurpassed
>speedwise, given a hefty enough CPU, but TNT is not far behind, and has a
>better quality of image, will support higher resolutions, 3D in a window,
>and will even outrun the V2 on some DirectX based games.
>
>Both is prolly the best option, TNT as a primary card, coupled up to a
>couple of V2's  8^�

Agreed, I have a Creative v2 12mb and an STB TNT card.
The Voodoo2 with lots of tweeking gets me 146fps at 512x384 with the latest
minigl driver and creative drivers. My TNT give me 110 fps at the same res.
Hovever with direct x stuff, the TNT offers almost as good fps's as the
voodoo, but with much better image quality, and the ability to run at much
higher resolutions.

Despite what many may say, IMO fps is everything, and you really need a card
that can perform at at least 60fps in most situations.

My system at present :-
P2 400
128mb sdram
12 mb C Labs V2
Stb 4400 TNT
17" Iiyama monitor

I have the refresh rates of the monitor set to 120 hz when running quake,
and v sync off.

Dave Raman
AKA
Easy Frag

One thing confuses me (well, lots actually....)

Why would anyone actually want a higher resolution than 1024x768.....
(???)

I play at that res, and I fail to see how it could actually look better. It
might be nice from a "My computer can" point of view, but surely noone
actually plays at 1600xwhatever....

Am I wrong ?

--
*Joshua*
ICQ <18008940>

Marcus[SF] <marcus_cooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.10f10b92caa6a6039896c0@news.freeserve.net...
>> What the hell is a TNT Banshee ?
>
>I shall solve your lack of cognitive abilities and tell you this.I guess
>he was meant to say "Riva TNT".
>We all make mistakes mate and it is not too nice to behave that way
>towards somebody who has.
>
>Regards Marcus

In article <7651v1$6g$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, 
Joshua@burntisland45.freeserve.co.uk says...
> One thing confuses me (well, lots actually....)
> 
> Why would anyone actually want a higher resolution than 1024x768.....
> (???)
> 
> I play at that res, and I fail to see how it could actually look better. 

If thats on Voodoo then you will know that it could look a whole lot 
better. Drop down to 640x480 on a Voodoo2 and it looks as blurry as hell 
now, even tho it was way ahead of anything when V1 first set the 
benchmarks at that level. 1024x768 goes some way to removing that 
blurriness, but it is still noticable. That is one of the reasons that 
TNT's are getting such good image quality reviews, they do not have the 
same problem and produce a much sharper image. Voodoo3 with it's lack of 
pass-thru cable may attempt to correct this, but, seeing as it is merely 
an 'evolution' of the current chipset, I am not building my hopes up too 
much.


> It might be nice from a "My computer can" point of view, 

Ya bet yo damn sweet booty it would   8^�


> but surely noone
> actually plays at 1600xwhatever....

Only because it's not practical to do so yet. Even V3 looks like it's not 
especially up to the job at that high, 1280x1024 will prolly be the next 
common resolution.

In article <MPG.10f10b92caa6a6039896c0@news.freeserve.net>, 
marcus_cooper@yahoo.com says...
> > What the hell is a TNT Banshee ?
> 
> I shall solve your lack of cognitive abilities and tell you this.I guess 
> he was meant to say "Riva TNT".
> We all make mistakes mate and it is not too nice to behave that way 
> towards somebody who has.



HEHEHEHEHHEHEH

JETHRO GOT TOLD OFF !  JETHRO GOT TOLD OFF !  JETHRO GOT TOLD OFF !  

Oops, soz, heh.

> What the hell is a TNT Banshee ?

I shall solve your lack of cognitive abilities and tell you this.I guess 
he was meant to say "Riva TNT".
We all make mistakes mate and it is not too nice to behave that way 
towards somebody who has.

Regards Marcus

but the artwork in Q2 isn't as hirez as this... Surely the textures are at a
fixed res. Above that, the only thing you are changing in resolution is the
polygons themselves. That just means smaller if not invisible jaggy lines.
1024x768 looks bloody sharp to me. The text in Unreal for instance is almost
too small to read. I reckon anything over 1024x768 is gonna be at the
expense of framerate. Thats an awful lot of extra pixels to render for a
teensy small return in image quality.

I've got a 2x12mb sli voodoo2 setup, and *nothing* in the way of chipsets
has even slightly tempted me to sell em and replace with a new graphics
chipset. TNT and Unreal for instance ? Nah, don't think so...   :)

I have no problems with the passthrough arrangements. I have a decent
passthrough cable though....

--
*Joshua*
ICQ <18008940>

Phil Webb <phil.webb@i.am> wrote in message
news:MPG.10f05cb2cc522b11989854@news.clara.net...
>In article <7651v1$6g$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>Joshua@burntisland45.freeserve.co.uk says...
>> One thing confuses me (well, lots actually....)
>>
>> Why would anyone actually want a higher resolution than 1024x768.....
>> (???)
>>
>> I play at that res, and I fail to see how it could actually look better.
>
>If thats on Voodoo then you will know that it could look a whole lot
>better. Drop down to 640x480 on a Voodoo2 and it looks as blurry as hell
>now, even tho it was way ahead of anything when V1 first set the
>benchmarks at that level. 1024x768 goes some way to removing that
>blurriness, but it is still noticable. That is one of the reasons that
>TNT's are getting such good image quality reviews, they do not have the
>same problem and produce a much sharper image. Voodoo3 with it's lack of
>pass-thru cable may attempt to correct this, but, seeing as it is merely
>an 'evolution' of the current chipset, I am not building my hopes up too
>much.
>
>
>> It might be nice from a "My computer can" point of view,
>
>Ya bet yo damn sweet booty it would   8^�
>
>
>> but surely noone
>> actually plays at 1600xwhatever....
>
>Only because it's not practical to do so yet. Even V3 looks like it's not
>especially up to the job at that high, 1280x1024 will prolly be the next
>common resolution.

>I have no problems with the passthrough arrangements. I have a decent
>passthrough cable though....


i use the passthrough cable that came with my card - i get no problems with
image quality, and my card is only an "unbranded" 8mb voodoo2
  .-----.-------.--------.--------.------.-----.---.
  | e-mail: cools@yourself.viscose.freeserve.co.uk |
  I web:    http://listen.to/cools                 I
  | icq#    20814781                             .-|
  `-----'--: kill "yourself" before replying! :-'`-'

I support the Campaign for Unmetered Telecommunications
              http://www.unmetered.org.uk