Yeah I wasn't sure if TNT belonged there or not, I did however got the impression that TNT2 did aswell. I thought the G400 only was good for 2D (even then..), but it was better even in 3d mode at 32 bit color? Anyway I doubt many people had or remember that many Matrox cards as gaming cards... I've mostly seen all the references for people which liked the G400 in X because it had decent drivers for it.
To bad I had to be wrong with the TNT then, shouldn't had added it;D
My friend got the Radeon 9200 and later 9600 for wow and he got all those bla bla gpu failed dialogue boxes the whole fucking time, and neither of my two real gaming "friends" seem to have give a fuck about ATI except the one which just recently got two of 3870x2 because the two Nvidiacards he had bought didn't worked on a non-Nvidia chipset. I think they was as fast or faster aswell but cost more? But maybe Nvidia got better cards/gpus out now which cost even more than the ones he had order at first.
And another friends GF4 ti-4200 still performed well when the other friend had his 9200 and 9600, and that guy followed up with the 6600gt (which was a quite logical choice..)
Ok, I have to admit that I don't follow graphics stuff that much because I'm not much of a gamer. I don't remember where I've read that the 3dfx guys was involved (which are probably more correct than that they did it all, but also that Nvidia was sort of occupied trying to make a GPU for the Xbox360.)
Feel free to tell me what z-testing was/is, I guess FP24/32 just stands for how many bits are used and that FP32 was more precise but computing and memory heavy?
Regarding planned future 3dfx chips I have no idea whatsoever:)
Why would anyone make a new laptop using AGP instead of PCI-express with any of those two cards? It's not like people upgrade the graphics cards in laptops often..
Since the Voodoo 2 Nvidia have been making the best video cards performancevise all the time except when they let the 3DFX-guys make the FX5-series. TNT, TNT2, Geforce especially, Geforce2, Geforce3, Geforce4, had them on top. FX5 was shit and Radeon 9xxx was better, Nvidia did catch up in the next generation thought. So yes, Nvidia lost in one generation because they used other developers, but it's not like the game change the whole time. The x1950 was a nice card for the price thought.
And considering the shitty ATI-drivers during 9xxx and the very shitty Linux drivers and nonexisting BSD- and Solaris-drivers Nvidia wins even more.
My friend which invest a lot in his gaming rig because he have a work but no life (and play wow) got some ATI cards now thought because the latest Nvidia cards didn't worked in SLI on non nvidia-motherboards which seems kind of retarded. So he just told the store that they didn't worked in his system and returned them and got ATIs best stuff instead (some dual GPU-card in SLI configuration.)
Yeah, isn't something like 210 candela/m^2 or something thereabout supposed to be good? But then selling screens they do want the highest contrast values and I guess on specs a screen which are brighter seem better aswell.
Anyway it's shit that LCD and TN specifically are such shit. Most PVA got huge input lag and affordable IPS selection are very limited and things like dells 2007 WFP has this very annoying antiglare coating which made it look like you had a layer of grease and dust on your screen.
What says his "desktop speaker pair" are worse than your 2.1 desktop speakers? May be similair stuff. And your $100 worth of desktop speakers probably don't sound very good at all, and if peoples home theater setups have been sounding even worse it's because they was packages in the $100-200 range for atleast 5 speakers and a subwoffer. Of course that will sound like shit awell, but it will be surround... To buy a stereo system with atleast half-decent sound for the same amount of money never came to their mind..
Of course better virtual surround (better algoritms which affect the sound in a similair way as your ears would do) will make a diffrence, and also a headphone with a bigger soundstage such as the Audio-Technica ATH-A500 will probably make a difference aswell.
The audigy resample everything to 48kHz internally, so the Live proabably does aswell (both got the same sound chip don't they?), and that seems shitty to me. Resample 44kHz at 48? Can't be good...
I don't think I ever used the onboard sound on my VIA KT400 (Gigabytecard) I had, used an SB Live back then so I can't talk about that, but the onboard sound of my VIA K8T800 (or something like that, Athlon64 mobo from MSI) was real crap and it sound like total shit when I had to use it in OS X (and also Solaris I belive) instead of my Audigy 2 platinum ex with kx-drivers.
Now I have a 2H 2007 MBP and the onboard sound on this one are quite crappy aswell, I still don't have a mini-TOS and my analoge cable are shit so I can't talk much about that (the later one sounds like pure shit compared to the digital transmitted sound I used to enjoy thought) but I don't think it sound very good with my Alessandro/Grado MS-1 + HD414 pads either. It's good enough for the very shitty builtin speakers thought (shitty compared to anything not builtin, decent for being a lapop I guess.)
So I'd say that _MY_ experience of onboard sound is that it really DO suck, and even if the quality would be decent it would put more load on your CPU. I'm sure it getting better and better for each generation thought, and some of the USB amps people use integrated with their headphones are probably worse. The only good I can see with it are that it seems to be easy to get AC97 drivers for most.
Running wrong resolution for desktop work only seem retarded, and the DPI of the LCDs are already so low so I can't understand why anyone would make it even worse, but I guess Windows aren't the best Os to scale up the interface in.
Regarding the later doesn't never games support wide screen? I don't play them so I don't know. I do play WC3 and I do play it on widescreen without black bars, but the small stretchout doesn't matter much in an FPS, aslong as you can click the correct unit you are fine. And I don't mind the blur (which isn't blur at all but simply wrong data on screen =P)
Slashdot Mirror
That was funny, let me try:
Grow some balls nigger!
I don't know if it works similair, but here in Ã-rebro/Kumla it's called "StadsnÃt":
http://www.stadsnat.se/
Simply "Urban network".
The prices are right atleast, I think you can get 10 mbps for 99 sek = 10.5 euro / 16.65 us dollar.
Yeah I wasn't sure if TNT belonged there or not, I did however got the impression that TNT2 did aswell. I thought the G400 only was good for 2D (even then ..), but it was better even in 3d mode at 32 bit color? Anyway I doubt many people had or remember that many Matrox cards as gaming cards... I've mostly seen all the references for people which liked the G400 in X because it had decent drivers for it.
;D
..)
To bad I had to be wrong with the TNT then, shouldn't had added it
My friend got the Radeon 9200 and later 9600 for wow and he got all those bla bla gpu failed dialogue boxes the whole fucking time, and neither of my two real gaming "friends" seem to have give a fuck about ATI except the one which just recently got two of 3870x2 because the two Nvidiacards he had bought didn't worked on a non-Nvidia chipset. I think they was as fast or faster aswell but cost more? But maybe Nvidia got better cards/gpus out now which cost even more than the ones he had order at first.
And another friends GF4 ti-4200 still performed well when the other friend had his 9200 and 9600, and that guy followed up with the 6600gt (which was a quite logical choice
Ok, I have to admit that I don't follow graphics stuff that much because I'm not much of a gamer. I don't remember where I've read that the 3dfx guys was involved (which are probably more correct than that they did it all, but also that Nvidia was sort of occupied trying to make a GPU for the Xbox360.)
:)
Feel free to tell me what z-testing was/is, I guess FP24/32 just stands for how many bits are used and that FP32 was more precise but computing and memory heavy?
Regarding planned future 3dfx chips I have no idea whatsoever
You must have an awesome console if they are still HD.
The guy can't get a Nvidia card working in Win2k, how much value do you think people give his comment?
Why would anyone make a new laptop using AGP instead of PCI-express with any of those two cards? It's not like people upgrade the graphics cards in laptops often ..
Yes, they beat it, which is what I said, and also why. Try reading it again. Nvidia bought 3dfx and those people was developing the fx-series.
Because Nvidia focused on gaming consoles during that time instead, big deal, I'm sure they won't let it happen again.
Thought Nvidia 8xxxm-series are better than ATI HD x2xxx ones aswell.
Or to be more correct, ATI haven't been competive except during the FX5-series. Which more or less was 3Dfx-cards and not Nvidiacards anyway.
No they don't.
Since the Voodoo 2 Nvidia have been making the best video cards performancevise all the time except when they let the 3DFX-guys make the FX5-series. TNT, TNT2, Geforce especially, Geforce2, Geforce3, Geforce4, had them on top. FX5 was shit and Radeon 9xxx was better, Nvidia did catch up in the next generation thought. So yes, Nvidia lost in one generation because they used other developers, but it's not like the game change the whole time. The x1950 was a nice card for the price thought.
And considering the shitty ATI-drivers during 9xxx and the very shitty Linux drivers and nonexisting BSD- and Solaris-drivers Nvidia wins even more.
My friend which invest a lot in his gaming rig because he have a work but no life (and play wow) got some ATI cards now thought because the latest Nvidia cards didn't worked in SLI on non nvidia-motherboards which seems kind of retarded. So he just told the store that they didn't worked in his system and returned them and got ATIs best stuff instead (some dual GPU-card in SLI configuration.)
You forgot the superior software, but I guess you don't use it.
Yeah, isn't something like 210 candela/m^2 or something thereabout supposed to be good? But then selling screens they do want the highest contrast values and I guess on specs a screen which are brighter seem better aswell.
Anyway it's shit that LCD and TN specifically are such shit. Most PVA got huge input lag and affordable IPS selection are very limited and things like dells 2007 WFP has this very annoying antiglare coating which made it look like you had a layer of grease and dust on your screen.
But how does more FPS help when you listen to music?
What says his "desktop speaker pair" are worse than your 2.1 desktop speakers? May be similair stuff. And your $100 worth of desktop speakers probably don't sound very good at all, and if peoples home theater setups have been sounding even worse it's because they was packages in the $100-200 range for atleast 5 speakers and a subwoffer. Of course that will sound like shit awell, but it will be surround ... To buy a stereo system with atleast half-decent sound for the same amount of money never came to their mind ..
Your CPU have RAM in amounts which matters? Cool, most people in here probably use something x86-based thought ..
But people who use dedicated PC speakers shouldn't be allowed to answer in this thread in the first place.
Of course better virtual surround (better algoritms which affect the sound in a similair way as your ears would do) will make a diffrence, and also a headphone with a bigger soundstage such as the Audio-Technica ATH-A500 will probably make a difference aswell.
The audigy resample everything to 48kHz internally, so the Live proabably does aswell (both got the same sound chip don't they?), and that seems shitty to me. Resample 44kHz at 48? Can't be good ...
I don't think I ever used the onboard sound on my VIA KT400 (Gigabytecard) I had, used an SB Live back then so I can't talk about that, but the onboard sound of my VIA K8T800 (or something like that, Athlon64 mobo from MSI) was real crap and it sound like total shit when I had to use it in OS X (and also Solaris I belive) instead of my Audigy 2 platinum ex with kx-drivers.
Now I have a 2H 2007 MBP and the onboard sound on this one are quite crappy aswell, I still don't have a mini-TOS and my analoge cable are shit so I can't talk much about that (the later one sounds like pure shit compared to the digital transmitted sound I used to enjoy thought) but I don't think it sound very good with my Alessandro/Grado MS-1 + HD414 pads either. It's good enough for the very shitty builtin speakers thought (shitty compared to anything not builtin, decent for being a lapop I guess.)
So I'd say that _MY_ experience of onboard sound is that it really DO suck, and even if the quality would be decent it would put more load on your CPU. I'm sure it getting better and better for each generation thought, and some of the USB amps people use integrated with their headphones are probably worse. The only good I can see with it are that it seems to be easy to get AC97 drivers for most.
Running wrong resolution for desktop work only seem retarded, and the DPI of the LCDs are already so low so I can't understand why anyone would make it even worse, but I guess Windows aren't the best Os to scale up the interface in.
Regarding the later doesn't never games support wide screen? I don't play them so I don't know. I do play WC3 and I do play it on widescreen without black bars, but the small stretchout doesn't matter much in an FPS, aslong as you can click the correct unit you are fine. And I don't mind the blur (which isn't blur at all but simply wrong data on screen =P)
And the amp in and electronics in the audiocard in the usbcable are probably really kickass, or not.
Uhm, because one download mp3s and don't buy music?
Yeah, she should be happy he last long enough for there being a reason to turn it over.
or
Does anyone really have sex long enough for the record to end?