Im wondering if it will be worth my while to upgrade to a GeForce2 MX or possibly a GeForce2 GTS if the price is right. I'd like to spend under $200, $150 would be even better. Ive got a Voodoo 4 4500 in my main system, running Win2k, I score in the 2900's in 3dMark 2000. Im also wondering if just going to DirectX 8 will improve anything, so I wouldnt have to upgrade right now. Ive got the latest 1.04 drivers which support DX8,and I like the card, but my scores are kinda low. However, UT runs much smoother since I upgraded to the new drivers. I just want to see if I can suck more performance out of the V4 with DX8, so I can postpone getting a new graphics card.
Or would it be worth my money to go to a Duron 850 or 800 instead and be pretty good. Im hesistating to upgrade my video card just because 3dfx cards may cause some problems when upgraded to or from any graphics card including another 3dfx card.
Heres my specs.

------------------
Whaazzzupppppppppp!
Asus A7V
Duron 600@680
384 MB SDRAM PC133@113MHz
Samsung 48x CD-ROM
Toshiba 12x DVD-ROM
Zip CD650 USB 4/4/6
Zip 100 USB
Maxtor 20.4 GB ATA100
Voodoo 4 4500 AGP
Guillemot Maxi Sound Fortissimo
SIIG 3 port 1394 PCI Adapter
D-Link DFE-530 10/100 NIC
Creative Cambridge Soundworks FPS1000
MS Intellimouse Optical
Kleer 17-inch @ 85Hz 1152x864x32 desktop

The GeForce cards kick A$$. I have used them on both my home workstations (Win2K and NT4) and my workstation at the office (Win2K). I play games and use a Solidworks (a 3D modeling CAD app). They are cheap, and you can find a version to fit your needs and wallet. I use a GeForce GTS Pro 64MB at home on my main station, while my NT box and office workstation have regular GeForce SDR 32MB cards in them. They work, and they work well.

------------------
Regards,

clutch

Yup I would highly recommend the GeForce 2 if you hold out a couple of months the Ultra may come down in price with the release of the GeForce3. Im running Creative's GeForce 2 gts and luv it. Smooth as silk performance and beautiful 3d graphics. 2D graphics arnt as crisp but not by much. I hear that the MX version rocks as well with the perfomance-prce ratio.

I know you have a voodoo 4, but if this helps:
Quake2 timedemo demo1.dm2
voodoo3-2000AGP 70 fps
Creative Annhilator 2 mx 120 fps

with p2-350
128 M

but overall, it did not allow me to play games that I have had trouble running at smooth frames with my slow processor like Baldurs Gate 2, Giants, Blade of Darkness. etc.The games play but are still to choppy to enjoy thoroughly.
For the 125 I paid for the GeForce 2 mx card I am totally delighted, but the jury is out until I get my 1G processor. When I first put the GF card in after voodoo3 I wondered why it took so long to switch because I had always doubted NV, but tg I did seeing how 3dfx no longer exists sob sob..

Due to memory bandwith limitation you get nothing more with a Geforce 2 Ultra than you would have with regular Geforce 2. Because of this same bandwith limitation 64 Meg ram and 32 Meg ram on a Geforce 2 give almost same performance.

The choice comes down to Geforce 2 regular or Geforce MX. Waiting a few more weeks or months until the market reflects the coming of the Geforce 3 would be advisable.

Or wait until the Geforce 3 Ultra comes out in six months time and get a real Geforce 3, next generation hardware same as for X-Box, fully programmable special effects with no memory bandwith limitation. Unless you want to upgrade now, this would be most prudent.

But is an Adapter the best upgrade path?

Look at memory (lowest prices are now) and get either 384 or 512 total ram. Micron and Mushkin prices are going down too.

Processor upgrades over 800 Mhz have no real effect on performance and are lost money rigth now. Competition between AMD and Intel shall bring further performance increases and better processors at low prices soon.

I may have been influenced by "Geforce 2 Scaling Analysis" on Tom's Hardware Site:

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/01q1/010302/index.html

"<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Wolf87:
Due to memory bandwith limitation you get nothing more with a Geforce 2 Ultra than you would have with regular Geforce 2. Because of this same bandwith limitation 64 Meg ram and 32 Meg ram on a Geforce 2 give almost same performance.
</font>"

Unless you are running high resolution (1024x768 or above), at which point the increase in local memory size helps a great deal. In addition, the higher clock rate of the RAM (from 333 on a GTS, to 400 on a GTS Pro, to 500 on an Ultra) will offset the b/w limitation. In addition, he already has 384MB of RAM, and that wouldn't help 3D acceleration anyway as much as it would help with level load times and swap file hits.


------------------
Regards,

clutch

This should clarify my point further:

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/01q1/010302/geforce-05.html



------------------
Regards,

clutch

What manufacturer makes the best overall GF2 cards in general. I can get Asus, Hercules, Elsa, Creative are ones that come to mind. My dad just got a GF2 MX by J-Ton, some Japanese company...Ive never heard of them, but it was just $105 for the card.

I have always been partial to Hercules. I own a Hercules Prophet card & they always seem to add that "something" that makes it a little better than the rest. Just look at a picture of the blue Geforce 2 Ultra that Hercules made. It makes me want to buy a plexiglass case just so I could show off the card.

------------------
Athlon 700 @ 770
Epox 7kxa
256Mb PC133
Hercules Prophet 32Mb DDR
Sound Blaster X-Gamer
Pioneer 16x DVD
HP 9100i CD-RW
2-30gig 7200RPM WD HD
ViewSonic PF790 19"
Win98SE
Full Tower

I know this is off the topic, but if you notice in my sig, I was able to o/c my processor 72Mhz.

Hmm, maybe I should wait a month a wait till the Duron 800 or 850 comes down in price and a GF2 MX or GTS drops some more. I'll probably go with the faster processor first as Ive seen by overclocking that faster processor does do some wonders.
The only problem I'll probably run into is going from a 3dfx card to another. Would I screw stuff up if I went with a Voodoo 5 5500 AGP? That seems to be the only issue with 3dfx cards is changing to or from them, and if I could get the V5 so I wouldnt have to reinstall Windows, that would be nice...that and if Im able to fit it in my case. I figure to look at a V5 just because it's double what the V4 and having the same graphics chip might save a reinstall. If I can find one now.

if i am u i would not upgrade to a new card, i actually think there aren't much wrong with your graphics card, so why need to cahnge?
why not just wait a bit, and then save the money for later?

i am with erichui .

But if you must upgrade
head over to www.sharkyextreme.com and read their video card review. The Leadtek and ASUS brands are the best GTS models.

I have a leadtek GTS myself and my good friend has the ASUS. They are great cards.

sparkhard

[This message has been edited by Sparkhard (edited 08 March 2001).]

Actually, now I just got a Duron 800, well its 904MHz now...hehehe. I am beginning to see the limitations of the V4, however, Im gonna wait and see how far the GF2 GTS cards will drop since the GF3 is out now and nVidia probably wants to get the price down so they can sell more.

i like the asus, but it has a pretty cheesy hsf. a friend got a leadtek and is very happy with it.
he sent me his old geforce ddr 256, which i promptly put in place of my voodoo3500.
dood! my q2 timedemo went from 125 to 190.

u might be able to pick up an old geforce 1 card for dirt cheap and tide yourself over till the geforce 2 becomes reasonable.

and to think of all that time spent at sub 100fps...

Well, Im gonna wait a month or two then drop some $$ on a GTS, probably a Hercules or an Asus. Ive seen some Leadtek GTS cards in the past, but I dont see them anymore. Plus, theyve got one mondo HSF on it, and Im not sure if it will fit right next to a card.
I just want it to fit in my case right where the V4 is. How much of a difference is there betweeen 32 and 64 meg cards?
If its minimal, I dont know if shelling out a lot more will be worth it.

[This message has been edited by Brian Frank (edited 09 March 2001).]

What res do you want to run in? What color depth? More res, more RAM. Same for bit depth.

------------------
Regards,

clutch

I usually just run it at 1024x768x16, limited bit depth by the V4. Im not sure Id bump up the bit depth much anyhow. I might go to 1280x1024, but I dont know. My desktop res is at 1152x864 on a 17-incher.
MX or GTS, doesnt really matter, so long as it looks good and is faster than the V4 by a bit.

geforce is the best

Then get the 64MB card if you play on running at least 1024x768@32bit or better. Otherwise, the regular GTS will do quite well.

------------------
Regards,

clutch

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!!!!!!

Now I have another choice.
Its between a Radeon 32 DDR and a GTS 32MB.
The thing is the Radeon has hardware DVD playback and its $150. The cheapest GTS around town is over $200. Another thing is either way I go, since Im going from a 3dfx card, Im gonna have to reinstall probably.
What the biggest things are is compatability and drivers.

So many components, so little time.

Brian, you seem really worried about switching from a 3dfx card to a geforce. Let me enlighten you....you will have no problems switching AT ALL if you follow these simple instructions.

1.) Go to device manager and remove the voodoo card from display adapters
2.) Go into your control panel --> Add/Remove Programs and uninstall the 3dfx drivers and 3dfx tools and anything else having to do with 3dfx.
3.)Shut the machine down, insert your geforce, boot up, install the geforce drivers and you are done.

Some people like to change their current driver to a standard VGA card before the above steps, but i found that it doesn't matter as long as you uninstall all 3dfx drivers.

Hope this helps.

Okay.

Im gonna test out a Radeon DDR 32MB card that my friend cant run yet. Ive seen the difference between the GF2 MX, GTS and the Radeon card in benchmarks. Im looking more between the MX and the Radeon, just because I really cant afford the GTS cards, and my dads MX was pretty speedy and I'll see how the Radeon performs.

Thanks for letting me know about the 3dfx thing. Im glad Im wrong on that.

Radeon just sucked. I mean great graphics and all, great score on 3dmark...but, losing the ability to see the menu in HL after a game was irritating, and it also offset my screen in HL.
Im looking at an Elsa GF2 MX or a Hercules one at best buy.

Which detonators should I get; I am planning on overclocking the card.
And what about that refresh rate thing Ive heard about in games?

I have had great luck with the 6.67 drivers with my Hercules GTS Pro, but EddiE314 seems to have had the most experience with the MX cards. He might have an idea for you.

------------------
Regards,

clutch