Tweet
Originally posted by Che Guevara
Missing my good old ATI Rage Fury Maxx
...
Missing my good old ATI Rage Fury Maxx
...
-
AFR was so utterly useless, wasn't it?
-
AFR wasn't as reliable as SLI, but a faster method of gpu-multiprocessing.
The drivers? First were terrible, second were 'alright'.
The fact that there are no Maxx drivers for 2000/XP are one reason why I don't like ATI (as nVidia). I had to replace it with a Geforce
, but then P. saves the day...
In my opinion their drivers still suck (all my Radeon 8500 using friends want my P.
).
But the Maxx 'scaled' (?) great with high clocked processors (could play Max Payne with 1 Ghz in 1024x768/32 Bit/max details with the old Rage technology!).
In my opinion it was a good product (good performance, especially in 32 bit, 2d & 3d(32) bit image quality, motion compensation, IDTC, S3TC support, and so on...) but ATI killed it with their driver politics.
But, of course most important *g*: It was exotic and freaky.
Last edited by Che Guevara; 25 September 2003, 12:06.P IV 3,06 Ghz, GA-8ihxp i850e, 512 MB PC-1066 RDRam, Parhelia 128 mb 8x, 40 + 60 gb IBM 7200 upm/2048 kb HD, Samtron 96 P 19", black icemat, Razer Boomslang 2100 krz-2 + mousebungee, Videologic sonic fury, Creative SoundworksComment
-
AFR and SLI served different purposes. SLI was a solution for bandwidth. AFR for video processing speed, and not a very good one.Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.Comment
Comment