Alliedassault - View Single Post

Manny · 01-09-2002, 05:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gerard:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHAH

Most of ati's features are useless?? LMAO What have nvidia come up with thats so innovative? Fsaa oh thats right they copied 3dfx on that one.

Nivida's only innovation to date has been hardware t&l and that going on 3 years old now as it was in the original geforce 256.

Plus it is a useless feature. 3dfx were right when they released the vodoo 5, hardware t&l was pointless because cpu's were becoming so fast it negated the need for it. But all the drones who seen 3d mark the nvidia benchmark went out and bought nvidia cards even though there was nothing really innovative about them at all.

Anyone else think its funny since the death of 3dfx nvidia have had no new innovations? Nvidia stole and infringed on 3dfx patents left right and centre then bought them out because the court case was flying in 3dfx's favour. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Geforce 3 cards lack uslfull features, so does ATI. The power behind Geforce cards has always been their speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gerard:
The only real innovater is ati with their truform which gives a more realistic image which is the whole goal of 3d graphics. gaming isn't about retarded framerates with sub par graphics so you can boast "i run quake 3 at .35fps faster than you".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speed automatically means better graphics. Even with 1.4 ghz, you need a very good card to run Wolfenstein in 1600*1200 (which, btw, looks amazing). Most people don't have more than 1.2 ghz and thus for, for them at least, more speed means cranking up the details or resolution, which means better image quality. Not even 1/3 of the people who play are able to go higher than 800*600. Also, playing in 1024*768 instead of 800*600 makes a bigger difference than a usless feature that increases image quality by 10%.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gerard:
Nvidia always go for speed while letting the visuals suffer whereas ati and 3dfx in their last few years where concentrating on more realistic graphics.

People are soon gonna wake up and realise that optomisations are made in the graphics of games for a better frame rate. 60fps is more than playable who needs 130 fps? Anything over 60 is just for bragging rights.

Personally id take a game with outstanding graphics running at 60fps than a game running with sub-par graphics running at 150 fps anyday of the week.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Difference Ati cards deliver (if any compared to Geforce 3) is minimal. So minimal that you might not even see it. Also, please run Return to Castle Wolfenstein in 1600*1200 maxed resolution with 150 fps. Good luck.

Radeon 8500 and Geforce 3 Ti 200 are so close onto each other that it's not even worth argueing.

[This message has been edited by Manny (edited January 09, 2002).]

	(#24)
Manny is Offline Senior Member Posts: 609 Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: TheLandOfTheDead	01-09-2002, 05:48 AM <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerard: HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHAH Most of ati's features are useless?? LMAO What have nvidia come up with thats so innovative? Fsaa oh thats right they copied 3dfx on that one. Nivida's only innovation to date has been hardware t&l and that going on 3 years old now as it was in the original geforce 256. Plus it is a useless feature. 3dfx were right when they released the vodoo 5, hardware t&l was pointless because cpu's were becoming so fast it negated the need for it. But all the drones who seen 3d mark the nvidia benchmark went out and bought nvidia cards even though there was nothing really innovative about them at all. Anyone else think its funny since the death of 3dfx nvidia have had no new innovations? Nvidia stole and infringed on 3dfx patents left right and centre then bought them out because the court case was flying in 3dfx's favour. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Geforce 3 cards lack uslfull features, so does ATI. The power behind Geforce cards has always been their speed. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerard: The only real innovater is ati with their truform which gives a more realistic image which is the whole goal of 3d graphics. gaming isn't about retarded framerates with sub par graphics so you can boast "i run quake 3 at .35fps faster than you". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Speed automatically means better graphics. Even with 1.4 ghz, you need a very good card to run Wolfenstein in 16001200 (which, btw, looks amazing). Most people don't have more than 1.2 ghz and thus for, for them at least, more speed means cranking up the details or resolution, which means better image quality. Not even 1/3 of the people who play are able to go higher than 800600. Also, playing in 1024768 instead of 800600 makes a bigger difference than a usless feature that increases image quality by 10%. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerard: Nvidia always go for speed while letting the visuals suffer whereas ati and 3dfx in their last few years where concentrating on more realistic graphics. People are soon gonna wake up and realise that optomisations are made in the graphics of games for a better frame rate. 60fps is more than playable who needs 130 fps? Anything over 60 is just for bragging rights. Personally id take a game with outstanding graphics running at 60fps than a game running with sub-par graphics running at 150 fps anyday of the week. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Difference Ati cards deliver (if any compared to Geforce 3) is minimal. So minimal that you might not even see it. Also, please run Return to Castle Wolfenstein in 1600*1200 maxed resolution with 150 fps. Good luck. Radeon 8500 and Geforce 3 Ti 200 are so close onto each other that it's not even worth argueing. [This message has been edited by Manny (edited January 09, 2002).]