|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
02-06-2002, 09:45 PM
|
#1 |
|
Member (13 bit)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 6,791
|
Geforce 4
|
|
|
|
02-07-2002, 11:24 PM
|
#2 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Northwest
Posts: 585
|
They may have to space out the AGP from the rest of the slots for that baby. I wouldn't mind having to fit that in my system.
__________________
Prost! |
|
|
|
|
02-07-2002, 11:29 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,487
|
Wow!
__________________
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail." |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2002, 04:00 PM
|
#4 |
|
Resident AMD enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,445
|
hmm, sure they got a GeForce 4 out, but is it really that much better than a 3? When I did the test it shows my GeForce 3 at 100% and the GeForce4 at 108%. That is a huge heatsink!
Logan
__________________
Main: Gigabyte GA-770T USB3 - Phenom II 840 - 4GB DDR3 - Radeon 5750 1GB HTPC: MSI K9N6PGM2-V2 - Athlon II 250 - 4GB DDR2 - Radeon 5670 512MB HTPC: Zotac GeForce 6100E-E - Athlon X2 5800+ - 4GB DDR2 "Play a Windows CD backwards and you'll hear satanic voices, thats nothing, play it forwards and it installs Windows." |
|
|
|
|
02-10-2002, 08:36 AM
|
#5 |
|
Member (5 bit)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 22
 |
I've read on Nvidia's site that the Geforce4 has a 100% speed increase over the geforce2. The Geforce3 isn't a massive increase over the Geforce2 so I'd say the Geforce4 is gonna blow the Geforce3 away.
|
|
|
|
|
02-10-2002, 11:23 AM
|
#6 |
|
Resident AMD enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,445
|
I don't know about a 100% increase, I think that is a little bit of an exageration. Anyways, connsidering my test scores, Visiontek Geforce3 @ 100% and GeForce4 @ 108%, that sounds a lot more realistic. I guess what I fear the most here is seeing a new GeForce introduced every few months or so.
Logan |
|
|
|
|
02-10-2002, 11:49 AM
|
#7 | |
|
Red-eyed Moderator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 17,576
|
Quote:
__________________
-At Ford, quality is job #1, job #2 is making them explode. ~Norm MacDonald, SNL News -Switching to Glide..Balancing in my head..inside of me... taking the glide path instead. |
|
|
|
|
|
02-10-2002, 11:59 AM
|
#8 |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 320
 |
yup, i bought a GeForce3 Ti450(Gainward's powerpack) a few months ago for about $170. now you can get a low end GeForce4 for about the same price. and it already comes with TV-out and a 350mhz gpu. oh well, i'm happy with what i have, i can't afford to keep on buying and selling my parts. Tech. is moving pretty fast. anyway at Tom's they say the extra 64mb don't help THAT much. so oh well.
|
|
|
|
|
02-10-2002, 12:15 PM
|
#9 | |
|
Member (5 bit)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 22
|
Quote:
Geforce2 Ti Triangles Per Second = 31 Million GeForce4 Ti 4600 Triangle Per Second = 136 Million Needless to say, I don't believe that Nvidia saying the Geforce4 has a 100% speed increase over the Geforce2 is an exaggeration at all (well, maybe just a bit  ). And when you look at the Geforce3 Ti benchmarks over the Geforce2 Ti, there isn't a drastic improvement. This is why I believe the Geforce4 will blow the Geforce3 away.
Last edited by hypnos_ric; 02-10-2002 at 03:28 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
02-10-2002, 03:13 PM
|
#10 |
|
Red-eyed Moderator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 17,576
|
OK, but is the GF4 outperforming in all aspects by just as much, or just in that one?
|
|
|
|
|
02-10-2002, 03:17 PM
|
#11 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 584
|
Very Very nice, I've always wanted to have a heatsink on the back, I mean that side fo the chip is so dull without one
__________________
System: MSI K7N2G | AMD XP 1700+ | Gainward Geforce FX 5700 256 meg | 512mb Mushkin PC3200 RAM | Enlight case/PSU | Hercules Muse 5.1 DVD | Lite - On 16X DVD, and 48X CD-RW | Western Digitail 20GB, and 80GB| Netgear Ga302T gigabit adapter |
|
|
|
|
02-10-2002, 03:23 PM
|
#12 |
|
Member (5 bit)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 22
|
HAL9000, what do you think
If the G4 is that much better in that aspect it's also gonna' be a lot better in all the other aspects too. They use the triangle per second example because it's a good way of showing off the graphics cards overall performace. Anyway yes, the G4 is better in every way shape and form Goto Nvidia's site and look at the specs: www.nvidia.com
Last edited by hypnos_ric; 02-10-2002 at 03:31 PM. |
|
|
|
|
02-11-2002, 01:05 PM
|
#13 |
|
Red-eyed Moderator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 17,576
|
Just because a device performs 100% better in one aspect doesn't mean that it will perform 100% in every other aspect. If a card is performing 100% better in one aspect, 30% better in a second, but possibly 5% less in a third, how would it rate 100% better overall?
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2002, 03:20 PM
|
#14 |
|
Member (5 bit)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 22
|
Well, it's that much better in that aspect - so it's a little unlikely to be be anything less in the others. Anyway the figures speak for themselves.
Last edited by hypnos_ric; 02-11-2002 at 03:22 PM. |
|
|
|
|
02-11-2002, 03:43 PM
|
#15 |
|
Red-eyed Moderator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 17,576
|
Well, that's what I'm asking for... figures. I could post a single figure showing an Intel absolutely crushing and AMD chip and what a flame war that would start (just a statement to emphasize a point, no need to start the AMD/Intel discussion). One figure a fair comparison does not make.
Last edited by HAL9000; 02-11-2002 at 03:54 PM. |
|
|
|
|
02-11-2002, 03:50 PM
|
#16 |
|
Member (5 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 17
|
Why do they not just make GeForce2 Low-End Geforce3 Mid-Range and GeForce4 High-end? Can someone explain this to me
-GeForce2MX -GeForce2GO -GeForce2Ultra -GeForce2Ti -GeForce2DDR -GeForce3Ti200 -GeForce3 -GeForce3Ti500 -GeForce4MX4400 -GeForce4 
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2002, 03:59 PM
|
#17 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,487
|
You forgot the geforce4 go, and there are two geforce4 TIs and 3 geforce4 MXs.. hehe
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2002, 04:37 PM
|
#18 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 75
|
from what i understand, triangles/sec is a good reference point to start comparing video cards, but it really doesn't tell the whole story. you'd really have to establish the same standards for triangles, color depth, lightsources, anti-aliasing, bumpmapping, and all that other good stuff. even with all those even, different cards may have different strengths, i.e. 3dfx focuses on 16 bit color while nvidia moves on to 32 bit.
|
|
|
|
|
02-13-2002, 05:06 AM
|
#19 |
|
Member (5 bit)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 22
|
Greedo, I understand what you're saying and you're right. There's a lot to a graphics card. My emphasis however was only on performance. Things like FSAA are all about 'eye candy' I suppose
I know that the Geforce4 has a load of features but I'm not too sure about what is has. As for performance - the Geforce4 is the daddy 
|
|
|
|
|
02-13-2002, 01:23 PM
|
#20 |
|
Red-eyed Moderator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 17,576
|
Well, then it comes down to what I have always said, it depends on what you want in a card. If you want nothing but pure speed, get a GeForce, if you want good overall performance with a better picture quality, get a Radeon. I personally like the "eye candy" and find that the Radeon is plenty fast enough for the games that I play.
|
|
|
|
|
02-13-2002, 07:18 PM
|
#21 |
|
Member (12 bit)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 2,463
|
Words I repeat from another post, spoken by Mr Carmack, talking about the forthcoming Doom III and Quake IV and multitude of other spawns...
Nvidia has really made a mess of the naming conventions here. I always thought it was bad enough that GeForce2 was just a speed bumped GeForce1, while GeForce3 had significant architectural improvements over GeForce2. I expected GeForce4 to be the speed bumped GeForce3, but calling the NV17 GeForce4-MX really sucks. GeForce4-MX will still run Doom properly, but it will be using the NV10 codepath with only two texture units and no vertex shaders. A GeForce3 or 8500 will be much better performers. The GeForce4-MX may still be the card of choice for many people depending on pricing, especially considering that many games won't use four textures and vertex programs, but damn, I wish they had named it something else. In other words take care with your GeForce 4! It is not just a faster GeForce 3! In fact, because of it's different architecture, it may actually be slower than the GeForce 3 depending on the games you play. This make life difficult. I mean the GeForce 4 has an improved clock rate and bandwidth that make a GF 4 Ti4600 50% faster than a GF 3 Ti500. So, overall, which will be better? The 3 or the 4? We will have to wait an see. All you who want to gamble and spend a LOT of cash on a 4, go ahead......rather you than me! |
|
|
|
|
02-15-2002, 07:13 PM
|
#22 |
|
Member (8 bit)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Mordor: New zealand
Posts: 223
|
Geforce 4 Or a Geforce 3
Maybe they just got a geforce 3 and overclocked the s**t out of it and called it geforce 4
|
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
