• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Cost issues: GF3 or GF2Ultra?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Über~PhLuBB

Jedi Knight Senior
Joined
May 9, 2001
Location
Portland, OR
I want some opinions from people who have tried both cards. Is the GF3 really wirth the extra $100? I mean, you can get 'em for at little as $299 now at www.pricewatch.com (The crappy brands, I know. I wont settle for anything but Elsa, Asus, or Leadtek)

But you can get GeForce2 Ultras for $205. Sure, nVidia SAYS the GeForce 3 is "up to 3 times faster", but we all know that's not true. Look at Sony. They said the Playstation 2 was 32 (Yes, thirty-two ) times faster than the Dreamcast. With the Dreamcast's 180MHz clockspeed, that would mean the PS2's clock is over 5.7GHz. That's just obsurd. The cooling requirments alone...

My point is, is nVidia blowing 3 cubic miles of smoke up my *** by saying the GF3 is 3 times faster? Or is the nfiniteFX engine worth it?
 

Pinky

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Location
Narf City, USA
Right here and now, they perform equally well. A year from now, you may not even be able to play the newest games without a geforce 3.

Question you may want to ask yourself: "Am I planning on keeping this card for a while, or just as a short term solution?"

I asked myself the same question, which is why in 2 weeks I will have a geforce 3 (probably a Visiontek which matches up nicely, for the price, to the other good brands you had mentioned).
 
OP
Über~PhLuBB

Über~PhLuBB

Jedi Knight Senior
Joined
May 9, 2001
Location
Portland, OR
Well indeed, that is a valid point, but if they are nearly identical in sheer power, why would games only be able to be played using a GeForce3?

The question is: Right here and now, when is enough enough? Can the GeForce2 Ultra really perform on par with the GeForce3? Is nVidia just trying to sell more by saying it's faster? I do indeed plan on playing games in the future. MANY games. ALL the good games. But just the same as I'm able to whup some serious anus in Unreal Tourney with my little GeForce256 32MB non DDR here and now, why wouldnt I be able to do the same 2 years from now, with a GeForce2 Ultra playing Unreal 3? (Not 2, that's coming out soon. I'm looking beyond that)
 

Pinky

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Location
Narf City, USA
PhLuBB (Jul 13, 2001 04:59 a.m.):
Well indeed, that is a valid point, but if they are nearly identical in sheer power, why would games only be able to be played using a GeForce3?

The hardware on the geforce 3 is programmable, which means that software can shift some of the rendering to the video card, alleviating a fair portion of the burden from the CPU, which frees the PC up for more AI and other perks more CPU power can give.

As for 'when enough is enough', that's all a matter of perspective. Remember when Mr. Gates said 'Noone will ever need more than 1MB of RAM for applications...'
 
E

el

Guest
how much will the GF3 MX cost? sounds good if it is only 150bucks and will drop the cost of the ultras.
 

Richard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2001
$300 really isn't a terrible price for a top of the line card. The biggest advantage that the GeForce3 offers _right now_ over the GF2Ultra is FSAA performance.

Normally I don't recommend buying a piece of hardware for the advantages that can be achieve in the future, but in this case I think it is worth an exception. $200 is still a nice chunk of change for a video card. Why not spend the extra $100 and get clearly the best.

The question here is, "How much are you willing to spend"? At $300 I think the GF3 has hit the magical, "reasonable" price for a Top-End card. If you don't care about getting "The Best" then I wouldn't spend more than $150 on a video card.

PhLuBB (Jul 13, 2001 04:50 a.m.):
I want some opinions from people who have tried both cards. Is the GF3 really wirth the extra $100? I mean, you can get 'em for at little as $299 now at www.pricewatch.com (The crappy brands, I know. I wont settle for anything but Elsa, Asus, or Leadtek)

But you can get GeForce2 Ultras for $205. Sure, nVidia SAYS the GeForce 3 is "up to 3 times faster", but we all know that's not true. Look at Sony. They said the Playstation 2 was 32 (Yes, thirty-two ) times faster than the Dreamcast. With the Dreamcast's 180MHz clockspeed, that would mean the PS2's clock is over 5.7GHz. That's just obsurd. The cooling requirments alone...

My point is, is nVidia blowing 3 cubic miles of smoke up my *** by saying the GF3 is 3 times faster? Or is the nfiniteFX engine worth it?
 
OP
Über~PhLuBB

Über~PhLuBB

Jedi Knight Senior
Joined
May 9, 2001
Location
Portland, OR
Indeed, $300 isn't very much. You can barely get a moderately respectable car stereo head unit for that. But you see, the problem is funding. I had to sell my precious Team Losi XX4. (Some might remember the "ad"... Check my profile for my other posts) I'm getting payments on it, $80 every 2 weeks. I'm only up to $140. I've got a long way to go. It's a matter of settling for a closer destination (The GFUltra) or holding out and practically passing out from anticipation (GF3).

(And BTW, I'm not settling for any of that MX bullcrap. That's just cheap. Like a Celeron or a Duron. You can pay just slightly more, and get the best. What am I saying? I'm contradicting my own argument!)
 

Geobronc

Member
Joined
May 9, 2001
I had the same decision to make and nearly went with the GF2 ultra, however, I went for a Visiontek GF3 and I have not been unhappy. This thing ROCKS!
I can clock it to 235/545 Stable! Even the GF2 Ultra cant do that! Even more is that the picture quality is a lot better.on the Gf3 IMHO.

I play games like Tribes 2 and Rogue Spear Urban ops and will get into some of the new games when they are out. Face it, the GF2 is now 1+ year old technology. I bought the GF3 so that I can keep it for a year at least!