VISIONTEK Geforce3????

[flyman0]

Got a question, is this a good card or does someone know of any reviews of it???? This is the card I plan on geting with my new computer. Specs below for computer:

IWILL KA266-R DDR
AMD 1.33Ghz AXIA
256X2 PC2100 DDR
VISIONTEK Geforce3
2 15Gb 7200Rpm Maxtors (in raid)
Generic CD/Floppy
4 point surround sound/with sub
19in monitor (.22mm dot, 1600 X 1200 @85Mhz)
BIG case
mouse

TOTAL=1568.74 including shipping/handeling :)

I ask because I don't know if the GeForce3 will work with the MOBO all that well. Any comments will be appriciated

[paddy]

Trust me: the card ROCKS.
I have a very similar system:
Iwill ka266-r
Tbird 1.2 @ 1.466 (11x133)
256 MB of PC2400 ddr ram
Visiontek Geforce 3
IBM XGP75 45 GB Hard drive
SB Live
TDK Velocd

The card is presently humming along at 230/505 and I'm getting 5700 3Dmarks in 3DMark2001 default.

[ExtremeOC]

finally! one of our members has a GF3!!

and to think, i'm happy with a VooDoo3...

well, from NOTHING on 3d to an accelerator, it's nice.

It beats my Savage4 (Stealth 3 s540) in almsot everything other then no 32bit, and terrable 2d.

[PowerProtein]

Let's just put it in simple terms. GeForce 3 is heaven inside a computer's case. Where the GF3 is GOD, and we worship it.
hehe
I don't have enough dough for a GF3 but i'm hoping an MX version comes out eventually.

[Pitspawn]

I'm selling my GeForce2 w/ blorb and ramsink mods soon for ~£200 hopefully soon. In its replacement, i think i might get a GF3, as it means shelling out about an extra £170. The Leadtek looks tasty although I think its ramsinks and core fan look cheapy. The Guillemot/Hurcules GF3 looks much better, but it is more :(

[batboy]

While the Hercules GF3 cards look wonderful (I love my Herc MX), the Vision Tek is $100 US cheaper. Both video cards are getting good reviews and both are great cards. But, saving $100? Hello, Vision Tek!

[joshua]

I have had bad luck with the visiontek cards and i have read a few others have to for instance maximumpc.com forum on the new GF3 visiontek
I just got a hercules card and man oh man this it without a dought the best card company out there in my opinion

[Wa11y]

How does the visiontek compare to the Leadtek? I've heard the Leadtek is Top Dog when it comes to GeForce 3, but I've not seen any benchmarks for the VisionTek. I'd like to see a side-by-side comparision, kinda like they do at IGN. A FPS comparision at different resolutions while in different games would be very useful. And how do they stack up price-wise? Pricewatch.com has the Leadtek for $380 at the cheapest.

[Placid]

flyman0 (May 17, 2001 06:20 a.m.):
Got a question, is this a good card or does someone know of any reviews of it???? This is the card I plan on geting with my new computer. Specs below for computer:

IWILL KA266-R DDR
AMD 1.33Ghz AXIA
256X2 PC2100 DDR
VISIONTEK Geforce3
2 15Gb 7200Rpm Maxtors (in raid)
Generic CD/Floppy
4 point surround sound/with sub
19in monitor (.22mm dot, 1600 X 1200 @85Mhz)
BIG case
mouse

TOTAL=1568.74 including shipping/handeling :)

I ask because I don't know if the GeForce3 will work with the MOBO all that well. Any comments will be appriciated

I have a Visontek GF3 and it work flawlessly.

Here is a link to a review.

http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/vtgeforce3/introduction.shtml

[Sony]

I will probably be the next person to get a GF3 in this forum mine is ariving monday it's the Leadtek GF3 so once I get it up and running I will tell you about it.

[batboy]

I'd like to see some 3Dmark benchmark compared between the GF2 Ultra and the GF3 cards. I'm close to buying a new vid card and wonder if the extra $100+ price tag on the GF3 is really worth it at this time. The reasoning is that I could almost buy another harddrive with the money I'd save buying the Ultra over the GF3. Decisions, decisions.

[[OC]_SR20DE]

Batboy, I think that extra $100 for buying a GF3 will do the job. You will get all out of extra $100 im sure. I have read quite a bit about GF3's perfomance. I bet you'll be happy. Somebody said Flawless. yes indeed.

[Placid]

batboy (May 19, 2001 01:07 p.m.):
I'd like to see some 3Dmark benchmark compared between the GF2 Ultra and the GF3 cards. I'm close to buying a new vid card and wonder if the extra $100+ price tag on the GF3 is really worth it at this time. The reasoning is that I could almost buy another harddrive with the money I'd save buying the Ultra over the GF3. Decisions, decisions.

Just go over to www.madonion.com and look. I think that on a similar system the gf2 ultra will get around a 3500 score and the gf3 will get 5500.
I went from a gf2sdr that would get 2000 in 2001 to the gf3 and now get 5300. The main advantage of a gf3 over a gf2 ultra would be the ability to use antialising 2x and 4x and quincunx at higher resolutions with much less of a performance hit than with the gf2 ultra.

Here is a link if you want to see more of the differences.


http://www.nvnews.net/previews/geforce3/anisotropic.shtml

[batboy]

I've done a lot of surfing, a lot of thinking, and a little soul searching today. Over at Tom's Hardware, he makes a good argument for the idea of buying the best video card and only having a better than average CPU speed. Obviously nowadays, a measely 1.07 gig P-III in a world of 1.2-1.4 gig Athlons and 1.3-1.7 gig P-4's is hardly top dog. I totally agree, right now my best upgrade path as a gamer and tweaker is to go with the GF3 vid card.

Currently, I'm leaning back towards buying a new Hercules 3D Prophet III, although the Vision Tek version is about $30 cheaper. I noticed that the Hercules already comes equipped with a Blue Orb cooler and matching colored RAM sinks... very pretty. I've read great reviews about the Hercules GF3 and I've been real pleased with my present Hercules MX card.

With video cards having more memory and more crunching being done at the GPU rather than the CPU means that computers like my 1.07 gig P-III can hang in there and fight for a while longer if the other components are state of the art. Later in a few months, when I upgrade the mobo and CPU (probably the to the yet unreleased Brookwood P-4 at the end of the year), I'll still have a top notch video card and system.

[[OC]_SR20DE]

Sounds like a good plan, Batboy :)
Good luck on getting a GF3. I'm sure your P3 1.07Gig and GF3 will do you good lasting!

and yeah.. I'm gonna get me a Brookie version of P4 later on too and get me a GF3 also. I'll have to do some good money saving and I'll get there!

[flyman0]

Hey, still don't have the GF3 yet, but I do have some interesting news. I was talking to a friend that works on computers for a living, and he says that acording to a "source" of his there is going to be a card that will knock the socks off the GF3. The scarry thing is it's suposidly going to come out soon. How soon I don't know, but I would think that it would be before the end of the year. I still plan on getting the GF3 for now, currently thinking of the Hercules card because of the RAM sinks and fan. Just thought I would update you all:)

[Nagorak]

batboy (May 19, 2001 06:38 p.m.):
I've done a lot of surfing, a lot of thinking, and a little soul searching today. Over at Tom's Hardware, he makes a good argument for the idea of buying the best video card and only having a better than average CPU speed. Obviously nowadays, a measely 1.07 gig P-III in a world of 1.2-1.4 gig Athlons and 1.3-1.7 gig P-4's is hardly top dog. I totally agree, right now my best upgrade path as a gamer and tweaker is to go with the GF3 vid card.

Actually I think you're best bet as a gamer is to just sit tight. Ask yourself three simple questions

1) Are your games running slow? If not, upgrading is a waste of money.

2) Is the speed my games are running hindering my performance? If not, upgrading is a waste of money.

3) Will buying a Geforce 3 really improve the speed of my games (it won't necessarily, Tribes 2, for example does not run much faster on a GF3 than anything else. Neither will UT since it is CPU limited). Once again, if not, upgrading is a waste of money.

I think a problem a lot of people have is a new card comes out and they HAVE to buy it even though they aren't even really going to get much use out of it. Sure, future games MAY run better on the GF3, but if the current games you play are running fine then upgrading doesn't make much sense.

If you're argument for upgrading to the GF3 is "I'll need it for Unreal 2, and Doom 3" then you are just wasting your money. When those games come out not only will the GF3 be cheaper, it won't even be the fastest card on the block anymore. If you only play Half Life: Counter Strike (this game gets special mention because it is popular and has low sys requirments) then let me restate you are wasting your money!

It's your money to spend, but if I were you I'd think long and hard before throwing my money down on the GF3. Hell, even the analogy to a processor doesn't work for me: I've never paid more than $200 for a processor!

The bottomline is, if your current games are running fine (and they should be if you have a graphics card at least as modern as the Geforce DDR) then why are you upgrading? At the moment you're just going to be paying for novelty and 3D Marks which kind of seems like a waste to me.

[Nagorak]

flyman0 (May 20, 2001 08:07 p.m.):
Hey, still don't have the GF3 yet, but I do have some interesting news. I was talking to a friend that works on computers for a living, and he says that acording to a "source" of his there is going to be a card that will knock the socks off the GF3. The scarry thing is it's suposidly going to come out soon. How soon I don't know, but I would think that it would be before the end of the year. I still plan on getting the GF3 for now, currently thinking of the Hercules card because of the RAM sinks and fan. Just thought I would update you all:)

Actually I can count at least 5 cards that should blow the GF3 away.

#1) Geforce 3 Ultra
#2) Radeon 2
#3) Kyro III
#4) Matrox G550
#5) S3 Graphics "Columbia"

I really don't get why everyone is rushing to buy a card now. This is really the absolute worst time. There is ONE card on the market, at the end of the year there will be FIVE cards (four if one of them doesn't pan out).

Let's see when will the prices be lower: Now with one card, or then with five cards? Anyone want to wager a guess?

[The Stickie]

I don't know which Geforce3 is fastest, but I do know they all are really really fast... ;-)

[batboy]

You;re probably right about the GF3 being too expensive. There really isn't any games out yet that fully utilize the GF3 features. But, I'll have awesome 3Dmark2001 scores. Screw it, I'm blowing my cash on the new card at the first of June. This MX card ain't cutting it anymore. If I had a Pro or an Ultra, then sure thing I'd wait a while longer. Looks like GF3 is here to stay. Driver support is excellent. Yep, I'm going for the GeForce III, the main choices right now are Vision Tek, Leadtek, and Hercules. The Vision Tek is currently the cheapest.

[[OC]_SR20DE]

PART 1:

Batboy quoted...

This MX card ain't cutting it anymore. If I had a Pro or an Ultra, then sure thing I'd wait a while longer. Looks like GF3 is here to stay.

-->> Very well said. I agree with you. That's what I was thinking too. :-P


To Nagorak,

I have shared your quote on what you responded to Batboy to other people on the net. I mentioned nobodies' names so they dont know who is who, lol. however, I wanted to hear other's opinion and comments so here it goes.. and by the way I agree with others who responded from your quote.


One person responded,
IMHO the GF3 is a waste of money right now.
But his whole arguement will not hold in a few months. Some people made the same arguement against the GF2, saying that the GF1 DDR offers the same performace. Now they've shut up and realized the GF2 is faster.
The same arguement is brought out in "real life" with people buying suv's. Do you really need an suv to drive on the highway? NO. But people stll buy them.

If you've got the money to buy a gf3 then buy one. If you don't have the money and bitch about the gf3 just STFU please.


The other reponded...
While he does make a valid point,there are games that a MX simply dont play well at High res...ever tried Undying? at 1024x768x16 i get a framerate average of 30 which dips into the ~15 at times. I have tons of games and for me,an upgrade is long overdue. And since upgrading to a gf2 would be foolish(although it was my intent before i noticed the GF3 price drop) i'm getting a GF3 tomorow...waste of money? I think not...not for me anyway


The another one reponded...
IMHO on the current games I now have I am able to put all settings to the max and in 32 bit color and still get faster fps than I used to. Is it worth it to me personally to have this G3? Yes, in a big way because I never realized how much better these games look in 32 bit color with all the eye candy turned on. The 2-D is much better too. Of course being able to afford it made the decision easy for me.

[[OC]_SR20DE]

PART 2:


The another guy said..
the funny thing is i want a geforce3 to play cs. people say that the low system requirments make it foolish to get a geforce3 for but i want to play cs at 1024x764 with as much fsaa and antistropic filtering that i can. only the geforce3 will do this for me at a resonable clip.

btw, i have a geforce3 coming in form newegg today, not for me but for a system im building for a friend. but the rest of the parts dont come in untel tommorow and if it does to cs what i think it will in my system today i am gonna order another one overnight


Another...
I do agree with the guy BUT one feature that the GF3 has that NO OTHER card can do as well is QAA! That feature ALONE (for me) is worth the money. If you've never seen FSAA (in person) you probably won't understand. But ever since my Voodoo5 5500, it is hard for me to play games (ESPECIALLY games like the NFS series) without FSAA now since I've already seen how much better the picture quality looks with it turned on.

Games can only get so fast before you can't tell the difference (100FPS+ min FPS), but the picture quality can ALWAYS get better.


another....
the gf3 is really not that much more expansive than a gf2 when it first came out last year...and thats for a 64 meg card that allows you to play games in 1600x1200x32 at HIGH framerate or in 1280x960x32 with QFaa and anisotropic tap 64 at even higher framerate...i'm sorry but in games like Mw4 at full details and Echelon,my little MX just doesn't cut it anymore



another...
Although he is half true, I know that I would sure be able to tell the difference between a GF2 MX and a GF3.



It depends how the user is going to use the GF3 for.. if you run todays and old games and new games at low res'ed and less eye-candy, yes ofcourse you wouldn't need GF3!! As I mentioned before.. this card's purpose is for high res'ed, with extra graphics features (if supported from old games) and with FSAA on while maintaining very satisfactory gameplay in speed. I heard that in in some case that a GF3 with 1600x 1200x 32bit out FPS'ed (in average) the GF2 Ultra with 1024x 768x 32bit in some games. But at low res'ed with 16bit color, the GF3 performs not well because it was not even meant to be run at that kind of low settings. You really have to own the card to really experience it. I have heard the reports from those who own GF3 and actually tested with GF2 Ultra ..and they were and are amazed with the GF3's graphics quality with Higher Res'ed than their GF2 Ultra. Yes.. I agree Jumping from GF2 Pro or Ultra to GF3 at this time may not be worth it but it sure is from GF2 MX to GF3 in anyday. Hope you got it what we meant, dear Nagorak :-P

[Nagorak]

Well that was a lot of posts, but I don't see exactly what they prove. Just because your GF2 MX "isn't cutting it" doesn't mean you have to buy a $350 GF3. There's the Kyro II, Radeon, GF2 GTS/Pro cards out there for just over a hundred dollars.

Come to think of it, jumping from a GF2 MX to a GF3 doesn't strike me as being very consistent. The MX is a budget card, one would think if you bought a budget card, well, you would be concerned with your budget.

Quincunx AA is actually very unimpressive from my standpoint. It was totally hyped up, but when it comes down to it, the quality is closer to 2X FSAA (not 4XFSAA as was claimed). Of course, I also feel that by and large FSAA actually degrades the picture quality anyway.

I never claimed the GF3 would always be a waste of money. However, there is a good chance it will be. Here's why: in 6 months when all of those cards I mentioned above hit the market, they'll all be faster than the GF3. The competition from all of them will drive their prices down, causing the "GF4" to cost much less on release than the GF3 does. In my opinion this will cause one of two things to happen: 1) The GF3 drops drastically in price and starts selling as a budget card-- you've just lost $250 for having the card a couple extra months; 2) The GF3 drops a substantial amount, but the GF4 and company cost only a tiny bit more-- in this case the argument could be made that the GF3 was still a waste of money at that point because the GF4 was only slightly more.

You can play Counterstrike in 1600*1200 w/full anisotropy with a Radeon LE for just over $100. Want FSAA? You can get the Kyro II for $115. HL has low requirements, I don't think any arguments about wanting higher quality in that game are valid at all.

Also, comparing the cost of the GF3 now to the cost of the GF2 64 MB cards when they were released and ALSO OVERPRICED doesn't really work. That's like saying hey, Windows ME isn't any more buggy than Windows 98-- it doesn't really say anything.

Keep in mind that the GF2 MX and the GF3 are not the only two cards on the market. Because the MX doesn't cut it for you doesn't automatically mean you need to get the GF3. Also, buying for the future only works when you actually keep the card longer than 6 months! If you are going to buy a card again in 6 months then there's no reason to "buy for the future", the card will be gone before the future even gets here. One other thing to keep in mind is things rarely, if ever, live up to your expectations. 1600*1200 w/QAA might sound really cool, but I guarantee you it won't be as great as you think it's going to be.

I'll be honest, I don't really understand where you guys are coming from. I don't really care to understand (and don't take that in the wrong way, I'm not trying to be rude). If you really think you need a GF3, then that's fine, it's your money to spend. I just think you should give it some thought first.

[Nagorak]

By the way I could easily afford a GF3 if I wanted one, so don't think that I'm living in the poor house and bitching about not being able to buy one. I honestly am not interested in it because I feel it is badly overpriced.

If you can justify the purchase to yourself, then that's all that is really important. I'll always be here to try to convince people to think twice before buying though. Kind of like that nagging "conscience" angel that appears in cartoons or something. ;-)

[flyman0]

I just made a major revision to my thoughts. I am getting a GF2Ultra. I will use the money saved to get somthing around X-mas this year, hoping that I wont need the added features of the GF3 untill then. Thanks a ton for all the input. This was one of my most successfull posts yet:)

[Placid]

Just so you know some GF2 Ultras have a "rolling" line problem.
You might want to read about what cards may have this problem and what ones do not.

http://www.nvnews.net/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000156.html

[Blackearth]

visiontek is supposed to be a very reliable and overall good card maker. geforce 3? holy crap dude! i would kill for one of those!