Geforce 2 ultra vs Geforce 3

[rUfUnKy]

Does any one know of any good reviews that compare these to?I was set on buying the Geforce 3 but with at least a $80.00 difference I can't really see any good reasoning to, besides having the latest Geforce.

Most of the games that support the features for the G3 wont be out for another year or so and by then I'm sure a newer G3 will be out or in the works. The older G3 will be "The old G3" before you get to even use these features.

[Pinky]

The GF3 has newer modelling features the GF2 does not. Unfortunately for GF3 owners, game developers are 6 months behind the card technology, so for the next 4-6 months the GF2 Ultra will perform in 90% of the games as well as the GF3 for $80 less.

[R0BB23]

hes right but i think there even farther behind then that.

there the same thing when it comes to anything else then gaming which is a small difference right now.

[rUfUnKy]

Are there any other diferences besides modelling features?They seem to be almost neck in neck in fps G3 is a little more as the resolution gets higher.Does any one else agree with me on the ultra being the way to go at this time??(not puting down G3 just trying to be sensable)visiontec ultra is $180 and and G3 is $269 =$89 diference

[[OC]_SR20DE]

Originally posted by rUfUnKy
Are there any other diferences besides modelling features?They seem to be almost neck in neck in fps G3 is a little more as the resolution gets higher.Does any one else agree with me on the ultra being the way to go at this time??(not puting down G3 just trying to be sensable)visiontec ultra is $180 and and G3 is $269 =$89 diference


Yes rUfUnKy you mentioned about higher resolution perform better than the Ultra. I mentioned about this few months ago but let me repeat again.. The higher the resolution, graphics setting, graphics features(2-4X AA, anisotropic filtering, environmental bump mapping, pixel shaders etc and etc...) , 32bit color, the GF3 literately kills GF2 Ultra in most intensive games. This is what GF3 is good for even right now. There is no comparison, period.
Resolutions starting at 1280x 1024 and up, with graphics setting 100% maxed, GF3 will just wipe the floor with the GF2 Ultra any day. If you are a low res'ed gamer with lesser graphics settings (those who play at 800x 600 or 1024x768), and if your monitor can't go beyond 1280x 1024 you do not need GF3. GF3 is not designed for low res and ugly graphics setting. GF2 Ultra has to run at Two resolution notches down and with lesser graphics setting to generate similar FPS as the GF3 can. I am not making this up. This bench was done by Robotech and few others who actually own both GF2-U and GF3 cards well prepared the setup and compared the performance between GF3 and GF2 Ultra. Case closed. Hee hee hee :rolleyes:

[rUfUnKy]

ƒ~ƒ‹ƒN•² Yah my monitor only supports lower res. and I usually play at 1280 1024. Though I would go higher if possable.(I love eye candy) Is the Robotech review still on line??I would love to see the comparison..:)

[[OC]_SR20DE]

Originally posted by rUfUnKy
ƒ~ƒ‹ƒN•² Yah my monitor only supports lower res. and I usually play at 1280 1024. Though I would go higher if possable.(I love eye candy) Is the Robotech review still on line??I would love to see the comparison..:)

Eye candy is good 4 u! :p :D That's where you'll see the shine on the GF3. 1280x1024 is a good res.. and play UT2 or Q3A at 32bit color and watch that fps jumps up! Sorry.. Robotech is an Anandtech forum senior member and he posted some great review of his benchy on the GF2-U & GF3 3 or 4 months ago. I tried to retrieve his thread but I couldn't find it any more.. arggggg!! You can talk to him or ask him about this benchy and he should be able to give you all the info! If I was able to retrieve it, I would've already posted it as my backup. Go to: http://forums.anandtech.com/categories.cfm?catid=31 and look for him. :p :)

[rUfUnKy]

I'll try and hunt him down..Thanks guys

[Pinky]

Originally posted by ƒ~ƒ‹ƒN•²


Eye candy is good 4 u! :p :D That's where you'll see the shine on the GF3. 1280x1024 is a good res.. and play UT2 or Q3A at 32bit color and watch that fps jumps up! Sorry.. Robotech is an Anandtech forum senior member and he posted some great review of his benchy on the GF2-U & GF3 3 or 4 months ago. I tried to retrieve his thread but I couldn't find it any more.. arggggg!! You can talk to him or ask him about this benchy and he should be able to give you all the info! If I was able to retrieve it, I would've already posted it as my backup. Go to: http://forums.anandtech.com/categories.cfm?catid=31 and look for him. :p :)

I should add that most gamers don't have the setup that would appreciate resolutions above 1024x768, I know I can hardly read the text in UT at that resolution and my 17" monitor ;).

I'm still not convinced the market is demanding/supporting such high resolution intended cards at this time. Right now 3dMark2001 is the coolest thing you can run with the GF3. Like a member told me when I was starry-eyed (and yes, I even bought the GF3 :() 'If you want to pay [in this case $80 more] to run a few demos and get higher benchmarks, it's your money.' I see now what he was explaining. It's really a waste of money right now, especially if you consider the GF3 Ultra will be out in 6 months when the games are finally being released and the developers are only guaranteeing the current GF3 models to run 30 FPS on these games, so then you'll have to upgrade again without ever getting your money's worth for the card.

Don't buy into the hype.

[rUfUnKy]

Pinky
I appreciate your honesty on this, being a owner of a G3.That was another point I wanted to make I also only have a 17" monitor.When there are games out that support the G3's extras I'm sure I'll be right behind everyone else buying the next model G3.

[[OC]_SR20DE]

Originally posted by Pinky


I should add that most gamers don't have the setup that would appreciate resolutions above 1024x768, I know I can hardly read the text in UT at that resolution and my 17" monitor ;).

Most gamers don't have the setup above 1024x768?? What setup?? Their machines are old you mean? or the games they play? Don't the most games even last few years support 1280x1024?? LOL.. I'm afraid that most gamers and young people here don't play oldie games sorry (DOH..) Most games even the last two years do support 1280x1024. Many people don't even play games that are 2 yrs old anyways.

And you said "I can hardly read the text in UT at that resolution and in your 17" monitor ;)" I have a question for ya.. and let me bold this one. How much time do you spend on typing UT commands in the console? I am serious. Which one do you spend more time on? Typing commands or acutally playing games? Give me a damn break. I'm not trying to be mad here by your reply but I am trying to be realistic here. Your reason just isn't enough for an excuse. That is your personal problem, not us. You really can't read those texts at 1280x1024??.. Did you know that most people(beside you) can actually "read" those texts?? I don't care what you can read or not, that's your problem. I was aiming at majority of all gamers who do have fairly good eye sights. You have options... List is below..
At this res in UT for example,

1. Move your head little bit closer to the 17" monitor for few seconds so you read the texts during command.

2. Get a better pair of glasses or reading glasses

3. If you still can't read it, use your sense.. Just type in the command without seeing them on the console. you can do that.. right?

4. Don't use the commands and just enjoy the game, not typing commands. I think the purpose of games are to play games not spend time on commands or change settings all the time.



I'm still not convinced the market is demanding/supporting such high resolution intended cards at this time. Right now 3dMark2001 is the coolest thing you can run with the GF3. Like a member told me when I was starry-eyed (and yes, I even bought the GF3 :() 'If you want to pay [in this case $80 more] to run a few demos and get higher benchmarks, it's your money.' I see now what he was explaining. It's really a waste of money right now, especially if you consider the GF3 Ultra will be out in 6 months when the games are finally being released and the developers are only guaranteeing the current GF3 models to run 30 FPS on these games, so then you'll have to upgrade again without ever getting your money's worth for the card.

Whether you're convinced or not, that's not my concern. Market is demanding/supporting the resolutions starting at 1280x1024 at this time. The word at this time, you are talking present time. This is the year 2001. The computer gaming industry is in great need for high quality, high resolution graphics. Don't we know this?? Gamer developers know it.. Nvidia knows it. ATI knows it. The recommended graphics resolution in playing games today begins at 1280x1024. 1024x768 is already getting old. And you seem to be bitching about the benchmarks such as 3D mark 200x from this post and your other posts in throughout this forum. I think Batboy is not happy to hear what you said about this. He is into 3D Mark.. Bunch of people including young people like 3D mark.. They brag about it.. If they like it, leave them alone. If you don't like it, keep it to yourself and yes I am talking to those people who doesn't appreciate the 3D mark. Guess what.. Did you know I am not a 3D mark crazy?? I don't run 3D benches, no 3D marks. I used to run some 3D mark less than a year ago and I am not crazy about this kind of bench but if people are having problems or need help on 3D mark, I try to help them. I am glad to help them.


Don't buy into the hype.

I was talking about the facts. If I think I have to speak out, I speak out. Apparently in this forum, many people don't know about the fact I mentioned in my first reply in this thread. And did I go nuts and push someone to buy this GF3 product? No. I was speaking about the facts and refresh ya's mind. You need it. Don't tell me this garbage "Don't buy into the hype". You seem to be more personal.. I noticed you now have ATI Radeon DDR. I know this explains it as well. I am not going to go on and on about this because You know what I am talking about. Some of us know.

[foxmulder]

I really don't see what you're getting so emotional about. Flaming people for their opinions is the surest way to deteriorate the quality of this forum and scare new people off. I think Senior Members should be especially aware of this

[Pitspawn]

Not being funny, but I have a GeForce3 and VERY VERY rarely play in resolutions over 1024x768x32. Even the blazing fast GeForce3 with its lightspeed memory architecture cannot handle new games like Tribes2 at a decent frame rate near 1600x1200x32 resolutions. Its not that my monitor cannot handle these resolutions, I can actually hit 2048x1536x32 60Hz on my 19" Monitor. I just cannot play at 30-40fps all the time.

Only mid-range games like Quake3 can handle these awesome resolutions. I can play Quake3 at 2048x1536x32 at 20-80fps in game and 1600x1200 is 100% playable at 65fps rock solid.

The advantages that I see in having a GeForce3 are the special affects that are being featured in the drivers. They are amazing, and no GeForce2 equivilant can match the image quality of things like the Nature Demo.

Problem these days is that the processor is no longer the bottleneck of the system in gaming. The most important part for gaming is the graphics card. This is how nVidia gets away with selling their premium cards at seriously excessive prices.

I doubt I would upgrade my graphics card for a Titanium, but I might think about upgrading once my card when it is 30-50% at all gfx slower than the fastest on the market.

[shtweazel]

I would love a GF3, but I feel like such a dope every time I buy a new "state of the art" card. I paid $250 for my GF2 ultra, and now it is a second rate card. If I go buy a GF3, it will be second rate in 6 months!!! At what point is it wise to upgrade? If you get every new "upgraded" card when it comes out, it just seems that you are chasing you're tail and wasting $$$$$. I am forcing myself to be content with my GF2 ultra. Besides, I play almost all my games at 1024x768x32, and it runs great! I will upgrade when I notice that the games I play start to run slowly, not when someone says that I should.

[foxmulder]

I'm actually able to play games like Max Payne in 1024x768x32 with a geforce 2MX. A Friend of mine wnted to try it on his P3 900 with a TNT2 card. Guess what? 1024x768x32 middle details no problem. I was really suprise. What I'm saying that Video Card manufacturers would like us to believe that we MUST have the latest and greatest to play anything at all. The truth is though that the developers have to make games for the masses which means they have to run on older PCs as well.

Now where do I get in line for a Radeon 8500?:D

[Len]

I think in a couple months the GF3 Ti200 is going to put an end to this discussion. It going to be $150-$200 by then. It's already faster than my GF2 Ultra (not-overclocked) and I'll bet some manufacturer will put 4ns or faster DDR in it making it a overclockers dream video card.

It's a difficult choice right now but if you wait a couple months I'm thinking the GF3 Ti200 is going to offer excellent performance for its value especially when overclocked.