Bought a MSI Geforce3 ti 200 VTG

[g_goncalo]

Very nice in my Abit BH6 v1.1 and celeron 566@850, and 256 Mb ram. I get 4900 in default 3d mark 2001, my G400 vannila get 1300..... Very shart image just like G400 in 2d. very very nice.

[Greebe]

and as always... what resolution are you running?

[rugger]

So what?

g_goncalo, and what does this mean for matrox card users, or anybody else for that matter

Sorry to flame, but we all know the geforce 3 is fast, and that it works most of the time.

[Guru]

Re: Bought a MSI Geforce3 ti 200 VTG

Originally posted by g_goncalo
Very nice in my Abit BH6 v1.1 and celeron 566@850, and 256 Mb ram. I get 4900 in default 3d mark 2001, my G400 vannila get 1300..... Very shart image just like G400 in 2d. very very nice.

http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30515

[Alec]

Guru, who runs Windows at that resolution????


Então, Gonçalo, no outro dia disseste que não valia a pena comprar uma Geforce... comprei e não me arrependi... e tu também não, pelos vistos!

[Guru]

Originally posted by Alec
Guru, who runs Windows at that resolution????


Então, Gonçalo, no outro dia disseste que não valia a pena comprar uma Geforce... comprei e não me arrependi... e tu também não, pelos vistos!

I do when I use photoshop or do some web editing, but I usualy run my comps at 1600x1200 when working with other programs and @ 1280x960 when surfing the net!

[Jon P. Inghram]

I just returned a PNY GF3 Ti-200 card today. 2D analog image quality compared nicely to my G400 MAX up to 1600x1200@85Hz(highest my KDS-AV195TF goes), other than an odd band of slight brightness variation that extended verticaly over the screen about 1/3 of the way from the left edge in a narrow strip, irregardless of refresh rate or resolution. Nothing serious, but for $200 it shouldn't have been there. 3D rendering quality on the other hand leaves much to be desired... in 16 bit color it looks like crap. 32 bit is of course better, but the texture blending still isn't as smooth as the G400.

Speed? In FS2K2 at 1024x768x32 it's only margainaly faster, I bet FS2k2's more CPU limited than anything. In Counter-Strike it's only marginaly faster at 1280x960x32 with AA on than my G400 is at 640x480x16!

Drivers... they're lame. Impossible to get custom resolutions to run at proper refresh rate on Win98 it seems... 1440x1080 was stuck at 60 Hz no matter what. And it defaulted all modes to the highest refresh rate possible... totally ignoring the monitors built-in resolutions and refresh rates.

[Kosh Naranek]

Originally posted by Jon P. Inghram
I just returned a PNY GF3 Ti-200 card today. 2D analog image quality compared nicely to my G400 MAX up to 1600x1200@85Hz(highest my KDS-AV195TF goes), other than an odd band of slight brightness variation that extended verticaly over the screen about 1/3 of the way from the left edge in a narrow strip, irregardless of refresh rate or resolution. Nothing serious, but for $200 it shouldn't have been there. 3D rendering quality on the other hand leaves much to be desired... in 16 bit color it looks like crap. 32 bit is of course better, but the texture blending still isn't as smooth as the G400.

Speed? In FS2K2 at 1024x768x32 it's only margainaly faster, I bet FS2k2's more CPU limited than anything. In Counter-Strike it's only marginaly faster at 1280x960x32 with AA on than my G400 is at 640x480x16!

Drivers... they're lame. Impossible to get custom resolutions to run at proper refresh rate on Win98 it seems... 1440x1080 was stuck at 60 Hz no matter what. And it defaulted all modes to the highest refresh rate possible... totally ignoring the monitors built-in resolutions and refresh rates.

All I can say is .... my GF2 GTS looks just as good as any G400 in 3D and in games using features on the GF2 it looks soooo much better in 3D !

I have no problems getting my GF2 to run in custom resolutions with max refresh rate ! It's a matter of the tool being used for the job ! Default nVIDIA reference drivers does not have any means of adjusting refresh rates because that is left up too the different firms producing nVIDIA cards to put such features into their own drivers !

I don't think nVIDIA drivers are lame ... the are by far the most configurable drivers I have ever seen ... there is simply no end to the way you can set them up .... quality based / speed based / OpenGL can be tweaked in infinite ways / D3D can be tweaked in infinite infinite ways etc.

[g_goncalo]

sorry

I've tried a hercules Geforce 2 Mx and the visual quality was very low in compare with my G400. Now i'm happy with the MSI. I've run the benchmark at default 1024*768*32bit. I'm still waiting for matrox release the next "big" generation card. I've read lot's of posts saing that a Radeon 7/8500 didn't run in the BX because of voltage og the agp slot. I've bought the Geforce 3 because my gaming was getting very very slow. I still recomend G550 for people who want to work with Adobe and Acads. Their are still the best.
But i've keep my G400. I'll never sell it!

[g_goncalo]

MSI

MSi has a tweak (3dturbo 2001) that let's you choose the refresh rate, just like matrox, for all resolutions...

[Alec]

Guru,
I was talking about 2048 resolution, as stated in the article.

I agree with Kosh, Detonators may have their flaws, but they´re configurable as hell, and even more with freeware tools that you can download. About refresh rates, you can use HZTool for W9x/Me or Nvidia Refresh Rate Fix for 2000/XP.

I had to lower down detail to play games with the G400. With the Geforce 2 everything´s maxxed, and so I play with all the eye candy on AND fast.

[Jon P. Inghram]

I was using HZtools, and every other possible method including editing the registry and it still defaulted to 60 Hz even when the software indicated it was running at 75. Powerstrip DID work, but only as long as it was running. Shut it down and you're back to 60. I may give one of the ATi cards a spin, never tried one before.

[Liquid Snake]

I got a Radeon 7500 recently. The G400 MAX was doing fine for my primary games (CS/TFC), but I thought it would be nice to be able to play some of the newer games at a decent speed I haven't tried too many games yet, but 3D doesn't seem to look any worse than the G400 did. I can't make any 2D comparisons as my monitor only goes to 1600x1200, and for some reason it looks rather blurry at that resolution (I normally run 1280x960). If it matters, I got around 2900 in the default benchmark of 3DMark 2001. I have seen better scores, but I only have a P3-750. g_goncalo, I have an Abit BE6-II, which has a BX chipset and the Radeon 7500 works without a problem.

[Novdid]

Those "BX problems" are maybe rumours some nvidia freak have spread. Who knows.

[Guru]

Originally posted by Alec
Guru,
I was talking about 2048 resolution, as stated in the article.

So was I!