GF2 MX or VD 5 5500

[rashly]

i really cant tell much of a difference between 16 and 32 bit. the voodoos always had good 16 bit(its really 22 bit the way it renders) so i use 16 bit. it looks almost as good and the performance is worth it.

as for the radeon having the best visual quality, i dont think so. it does have the most vivid colors in 3d, but in 2d i like the v5 better. and the v5 has better quality in 3d because of fsaa. it really does make it look so much better.

and sli sucking is false. imagine 2 gf3s in sli. that **** would be crazy. and shared memory is almost the same as sli memory. each chip uses the same amout of memory so who caresif in a game if both chips use 14 megs of shared memory or 7 megs each of sli memory.

as for the v5 being a dead card, well, in a year and a half it will be. it wont be dead, but it will be like the v3. people will still use it to run old games and new games at low quality. for now though ive had no trouble running any games so i dont see how u consider it dead. and it doesnt fully support ogl? ive had no problem in any ogl games ive played. i know there was a problems in a couple of games like tribes 2 but all it takes is a little inf modifying to get rid of.

 

[asmodean]

Not private shared memory, but common shared memory. That SLI has different texture memories for each chip, which all contain the same data. Waste of memory, I think. Like that 64 megs in V5500. If using shared memory, 32 megs would be enough.

I'll drop GeForce as soon as nVidia starts using SLI, memory is too pricy in vid cards to be doubled with the effective amount of memory staying the same old. If the price drops, then it doesn't matter that much.

Try running 3D Max for instance with OpenGL, V5 & Antialiasing. The lines get too thick. Not compliant. It's the miniGL which is used with games, not an ICD one. Unless it has been changed, but I've not heard/read anything about such thing.

 

[rashly]

yeah, ur right about them sharing the same textures, i didnt think about that. but i think 32 megs is fine anyway. the only thing ur gonna need the more memory for is higher esolutions and better textures.even afetr that not so much is used up so throw in 2xfsaa and it about maxes out. the vsa100s were designed for 32 each chip so really meory size isnt the bottle neck, its more about bandwith. i wish they used ddr instead of sdram.

 

[Cowtown]

They way you guys go on about the Voodoo 5500 is that it is the only card that has 2x FSAA! The Radeon supports this and doesn't take a very bad performance hit as well. Add in HyperZ to clean the image up and yes the Radeon kicks monkey lovin *** on the other cards.

 

[samuknow]

rashly (Jul 03, 2001 12:03 a.m.):
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.

This is exactly what I am talking about. QUALITY. I know that both cards will keep me over 30+ FPS at high quality settings. But which looks better there???????????????????? That IS the question.....
This may not be answered here....

Hey Shadow. Didn't you recently trade the VD5 for a GF card? Share your wisdome......

 

[el]

rashly (Jul 03, 2001 01:59 p.m.):
yeah, ur right about them sharing the same textures, i didnt think about that. but i think 32 megs is fine anyway. the only thing ur gonna need the more memory for is higher esolutions and better textures.even afetr that not so much is used up so throw in 2xfsaa and it about maxes out. the vsa100s were designed for 32 each chip so really meory size isnt the bottle neck, its more about bandwith. i wish they used ddr instead of sdram.

me too! I wish it had ddr instead of 6ns sdram!

ATI can't really compete with the v5 in price haven't seen them in the 85dollar range.

 

[spacetwinke]

GET RADDEON!!!!!
Though the 5500 is a nice card and will shine with your older games nothing matches the raddeons color its beuatiful!!!!
but to answer your question the voodoo 5500 is a steal
for the $$$ but i would invest a little more and go raddeon.
MX thumbs down

 

[rashly]

Cowtown (Jul 03, 2001 02:11 p.m.):
They way you guys go on about the Voodoo 5500 is that it is the only card that has 2x FSAA! The Radeon supports this and doesn't take a very bad performance hit as well. Add in HyperZ to clean the image up and yes the Radeon kicks monkey lovin *** on the other cards.

the radeon and the gf2 both have fsaa. but the gf2 fsaa takes a huge performance hit. the hit with the v5 isnt that bad. its about 10fps for me in quake 3. i dont know much about the radeons fsaa though, i would imagine it uses a similar technique as the gf2 by drawing the screen at a higher resolution and then bringing it down. i think its called supersampling.

and im not one of those voodoo zombies that think 3dfx **** will always be the best. the other 2 are great cards. im just sick of people saying that the v5 sucks.

if i were to buy a card right now i would get the radeon 64 ddr vivo cause it is an awsome card for a good price. i wouldnt get the gf2s or gf3s because i feel they are overpriced and the radeon i would like better. my next card though will probably be the radeon 2. that looks sweet.

 

[asmodean]

GF2 renders the screen at higher res, scaling it down. Not supersampling. GF3 uses supersampling. I don't remember how supersampling works, otherwise I could prolly tell the way it works.

 

[rashly]

yeah, then the gf2 one is multisampling i think. the higher res and then scales down. the v5 just drwas the screan then 'jitters' it to the sides and up and down and then comes up with an image.