| From: | Kyle Miller |
| Date: | 7 Sep 2000 at 00:29:38 |
| Subject: | Re: GFX Cards |
From: Alan Buxey <alanb@ftfir.mols.sussex.ac.uk>
> hi,
>
> > Does anyone else think it's a pain that Amiga choose an nVidia Geforce
256
> > for their Devbox spec, then form an alliance with Matrox? (Guess who
bought
> > a GeForce?).
>
> err, no. I dont understand people who rushed out to buy the first leaked
> specs when the devkit wasnt even out.
I didn't rush out, I was still using an old P120 at the time, so it was
about time I upgraded anyway. I would say the 'announcement' about the
GeForce influenced me *slightly* but to be honest I would have probably gone
for the GeForce regardless.
> > Not that I'm really complaining, I've had Matrox cards in the past and
they
> > are good. The G800 looks very good with T&L and bump mapping although
it
> > may have to do a lot to compete with the performance of the latest
GeFore 2
> > GTS 64MB cards.
>
> who knows what Matrox have up their sleeves, and what it can do. raw speed
> isnt everything, theres also the graphical look and picture enhancement
> technology.
Hmm, whilst I agree that anything past 50 frames a second or so at
1600x1200x32 is probably a bit pointless, if the graphics cards get faster
then the games can contain more polygons. Surely, that's a good thing.
> ATI's Radeon, for example has cool and well-designed functionality (such
as
> 1-command,1 clock Zbuffer clearing which means vast amounts of time saving
> on that part of 3D work. which means that the Radeon is slower than
GeForce2
> (by 10%) on 1024x768x16bit, but is ~TWICE as fast at 1600x1200x32bit
I'm sure that all the cards have at least one special feature that make them
better than all the others in that one area but the trick is knowing what's
important. That's why I read TomsHardware :-). At the end of the day
though, there's always something better just around the corner.
Dr. Kyle Miller
/*If you can read this, it's not too late for you*/
Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails