GF2 MX or VD 5 5500

[Me]

el (Jun 29, 2001 07:58 a.m.):
If you play older games it really does shine with 2x or 4x fsaa but whatever you do don't get the MX.

I am thinking about buying a voodoo 5500 and i want to know what newer games out there that it might have problems with. Black&white maybe? I mostly play counter stirke and quake , unreal type games. I know baldurs gate is just 2d so would that run fine/???

 

[Me]

el (Jun 29, 2001 01:50 p.m.):
Nvidia owns the rights/source of the drivers so in truth it is Nvidia who will no longer allow new drivers cuz they won't release the source because they want you to upgrade.

It seems like if 3dfx was still out they would be the top notch video card. Nvidia just put the video card industry back about year

 

[rashly]

ive had no problem with black and white. runs fine.

black and white though... was awesome for a week. played nonstop. then i realized it really sucks and is a very boring game. plucking individual trees and wood miracles gets boring after a while. glad i just borrowed it, never bought it.

 

[Nagorak]

Me (Jul 01, 2001 04:48 p.m.):

el (Jun 29, 2001 01:50 p.m.):
Nvidia owns the rights/source of the drivers so in truth it is Nvidia who will no longer allow new drivers cuz they won't release the source because they want you to upgrade.

It seems like if 3dfx was still out they would be the top notch video card. Nvidia just put the video card industry back about year

I'm not sure this is 100% true. 3DFX went under because its offerings could not compete with Nvidia's (in speed). Its too bad they didn't manage to hold it together and release Rampage...that very well COULD have put the industry back greatly.

Oh well :-(

 

[samuknow]

I agree the nVidia wins the FPS war. But do you think they are visually better. I mean after 80-100 FPS who cares? Movies run at about 26 FPS. so really anything around 50 will be more than enough. Especially at higher res. I really don't care if a card can run 140 FPS. I want To be dazzled.

 

[samuknow]

I have a new part to this question.

Which one will handle being overclocked. I mean HIGH FSB.
And tweaking the core and mem clock on the card......

 

[el]

I think Nvidia is better at higher bus speeds and I agree that B&W kinda sucks

 

[dozier768]

heck i love my MX i never really cared for the voodoo cards and ive had em all. i have zero complaints about my mx and id only give it up for an ultra or a geforce3

 

[Nagorak]

samuknow (Jul 02, 2001 06:41 a.m.):
I agree the nVidia wins the FPS war. But do you think they are visually better. I mean after 80-100 FPS who cares? Movies run at about 26 FPS. so really anything around 50 will be more than enough. Especially at higher res. I really don't care if a card can run 140 FPS. I want To be dazzled.

Absolutely not. I agree with you 100% visual quality is very important, especially now that all cards are turning out several hundred FPS. Unfortunately all hardware review sites bother to test is FPS (probably because they like making pretty bar graphs). And it seems that's also all that many people think about.

 

[samuknow]

Nagorak (Jul 02, 2001 05:00 p.m.):

samuknow (Jul 02, 2001 06:41 a.m.):
I agree the nVidia wins the FPS war. But do you think they are visually better. I mean after 80-100 FPS who cares? Movies run at about 26 FPS. so really anything around 50 will be more than enough. Especially at higher res. I really don't care if a card can run 140 FPS. I want To be dazzled.

Absolutely not. I agree with you 100% visual quality is very important, especially now that all cards are turning out several hundred FPS. Unfortunately all hardware review sites bother to test is FPS (probably because they like making pretty bar graphs). And it seems that's also all that many people think about.

It seems so. I want the quality.

What do you mean by "Absolutely not"

 

[el nica]

Hey guys, where can you find a voodoo 5 5500 for $90.00?
The lowest I find in pricewatch is about $110.00

Thanks,

El Nica
If you play older games it really does shine with 2x or 4x fsaa but whatever you do don't get the MX.[/quote]


I am thinking about buying a voodoo 5500 and i want to know what newer games out there that it might have problems with. Black&white maybe? I mostly play counter stirke and quake , unreal type games. I know baldurs gate is just 2d so would that run fine/???[/quote]

 

[Pinky]

voodoo 5 for $89.00 plus shipping (listed as $9.00 on pricewatch). No tax, of course, unless you live in Ohio.

 

[Cowtown]

I really like my GF2 MX, I have no complaints on the visual quality or performance. The card overclocks well and for the money is great.

If you guys want to argue about visual quality then you really have to tip your hat to Radeon, it eats both the GF2MX and the 5500 for visual quality.

I have said it before and I will say it again, for my money I would buy a GF2 MX. If it weren't for ATI's still somewhat subpar drivers and a similar situation with the Kryo II, I would likey consider those cards. 3Dfx? No.

Shawn

 

[el nica]

Thanks, but that one is for a MAC!

El Nica
I really like my GF2 MX, I have no complaints on the visual quality or performance. The card overclocks well and for the money is great.

If you guys want to argue about visual quality then you really have to tip your hat to Radeon, it eats both the GF2MX and the 5500 for visual quality.

I have said it before and I will say it again, for my money I would buy a GF2 MX. If it weren't for ATI's still somewhat subpar drivers and a similar situation with the Kryo II, I would likey consider those cards. 3Dfx? No.

Shawn[/quote]

 

[el]

this thread will never die! what does nica mean? I think the V5 is a great which is better looking? 2d and 3d I think I would take a oldie but goodie over a crippled chip.

 

[dozier768]

samuknow (Jul 02, 2001 06:41 a.m.):
I agree the nVidia wins the FPS war. But do you think they are visually better. I mean after 80-100 FPS who cares? Movies run at about 26 FPS. so really anything around 50 will be more than enough. Especially at higher res. I really don't care if a card can run 140 FPS. I want To be dazzled.

i dont know if youve ever had your crosshairs on someone in UT tactical op's or CS and there is 22 people running around throwing flashbangs and smoke grenades 26 frames per second dosent cut it

 

[samuknow]

I realize that.... I was trying to make a point.

With either card you will never dip below the point where the action will become choppy. My TNT runs over 40 fps most of the time in heavy q3 traffic. I am just asking which one has the best eye appeal.

 

[rashly]

fps do help though. like dozier said, if u have 26 people runnign around u need them. this is my rule though. put the visual quality up as far as u can as long as the MINIMUM fps are over 30. i cant tell the difference in a screen running 30 and 110 so i crank the visuals up as high as i can. 1024x768, 16bit, 2xfsaa and i never dip below 30 in online play for q3: urban terror. average is about 50. and it looks great. whats the point of having 110 fps if visual quality sucks. u have the power, so use it. id much rather have minimum be 30 and have high quality.

 

[asmodean]

rashly, if visuals are important, stop using 16bit colors and use 32bits instead.

As I said in another thread conserning this same matter, V5 has better FSAA than GF2.

Voodoo is a dead card. Admit it, people. It will NOT stay usable for long, due to missing T&L unit. It doesn't even have full OpenGL support, yuck.

MX is crippled, yes. But try using a card with only 1 VSA100 chip... If something sucks, it's that. You need 2 of those chips to get acceptable performanence and double the memory too. SLI sucks. 3Dfx ever heard of shared memory?

For most bang for buck, go MX.
For visual quality, go Radeon.
For a mix between these, go Voodoo.

 

[samuknow]

Radeon gives you better visual than the other 2?

I do understand the moore FPS the better. There are always dips due to wide open areas, mutiple explosions. high quality settings and the such. I just know that neither card suffers from being slow.