Q3DM9 Question

[Captain]

Look at this link at the Q3 forum and tell me if you have the same problem with the G400 32MB cards as they have with NVIDIA.

GEFORCE BUG IN Q3DM9

[Hex]

I returned my Creative Annihilator Pro and got a G400Max because of this problem... it also occurs in places on Q3DM6... the G400Max
is fine and dandy, no such problems for me... little slow overall at the moment... oh well... a massive improvement overall on DM9 which is good Matrox 1, Nvidia 0

----Hex

------------------
"There's no such thing as a stupid question, just stupid people"

[Rags]

Hi Guys,

I think you will find, that in practice, the G400's AGP texturing ability is far superior than the GeSpot's. You will see there is a slowdown on those maps, but nothing like you will see with the nVidia's. Of course, if they ever get their drivers up to par with Matrox's as far as texturing using AGP goes, then the problem will be gone, but they will also have more compatibility problems with lesser motherboards.

Rags

[Captain]

Does Q3DM9 work fine on a 16MB card to?

[Rags]

Yes, my card is a 16 and it runs fine.

Rags

[Captain]

Hi
Can some of you people with G400 do a test for me, have look at this page www.voodooextreme.com/reverend/Q3Arena/Quake3A.html#quaver and then benchmark the "Quaver" demo in 1024 and 1280 reselution.

Thanks

[JWilliams]

Right-ee-O, Captain! I got the Quaver Demo, set Geo. Detail-High, Slider far right, 32 bit color, 32 bit texture.
1024 X 768 39.8 fps
1280 X 1024 20.6 fps
These were with the 5.50 ICD
1024 X 768 40.2 fps
1280 X 1024 21.1 fps
These were with the 5.50 TurboGL
So much for the 5.50 ICD being faster than the TurboGL. This was the 1st time I took the time to check ICD vs TGL. But wait! There's MORE!
800 X 600 57.2 fps...TGL
640 X 480 76.8 fps...TGL

Now its all apples to oranges, as this guy was just running a PIII@620, I've got an Athlon@750, 128, G400MAX

He was running a nvidia Quadro64MB, and GeForce32 DDr, but at 1024 X 768, the DDR got (pause for drum roll) 15.1 fps!!!
At 1280 X 1024 the DDR got (pause for lllooonnngggeeerrr drumroll) 7.6 fps!!!
And, he posted THAT?? But the DDR shines at
800 X 600, 42.3 fps &
640 X 480, 60.2 fps!!! :=p

I will say one thing, after watching that Demo, I sure hope I don't run into Reverend on a dark and lonely server some night...He had so many "excellents", I thought I was hearing a Bill and Ted soundtrack!!!

[JWilliams]

After going back and re-reading the above posts, I see I missed the point about DM9, I am happy to report that I didn't know there was a problem with being able to jam on in DM9. That Quaver demo is built on DM9, so some of you guys check it out, it is a small zip download, and the Reverend is BAD.. so what if he was GOD'd...nobody lives long enough to shoot at him!

[Captain]

Thanks JWiliams

[Rags]

Hi all,

Here is what I get with my OEM G400 16 SH, P3-560, 128RAM, BE6, 5.50+TGL.

1024 32bit, default settings---> 41.6fps


Rags


Oops, I forgot to add that my G400 is clocked to Max speed.


[This message has been edited by Rags (edited 26 January 2000).]

[JWilliams]

No prob, Capt'n! I only heard of the 5.50 ICD > TGL thing about yesterday, so was wanting to do a side X side, TGL is still faster, for me at least.

But the real question is.......why did the GeforceDDR do so crappy-this was his call on the setup. I thought this would probably be a nvidia biased BM, (not Bowel M'Ment) but the G got dogged. And as a side, I have never played at Geo. Detail High..Slider full right on Texture Detail. Man that is really purty!! Set it like that and do a Bot game...plenty of time to stare, but the detail is ...cool enuf to die for!! The Quaver demo will become the Holy Grail for Nvidia..Run this and you are.....only about 25~15 fps down from that G400MAX!

[Valhall]

I have mailed Nvidia to investigate this issue and I told them that MATROX G400 does not suffer this issue, and they answered me back with folowing mail. Feel free to mail them back if they dont understand how G400 works =)

From Nick Triantos of Nvidia:It is an issue of how much memory they are consuming. Matrox uses 16-bit textures, I believe, and definitely a 16-bit depth buffer (even though they say it's a 32-bit depth buffer).

Regards,
-Nick
Nick Triantos <nick@nvidia.com>

And from Creative labs:

I am aware of this. The common wisdom is that this is simply saturation of
available texture buffers in video RAM; hence, 64MB eliminates the problem.
You bring up the Matrox card as perhaps questioning this. There are a
couple of possible explanations. First, the Matrox card may be running a
16-bit z-buffer (even if it is 24-bit capable like the GeForce) , creating
more space for textures. There may be differences in texture detail
despite similar settings, as is true for 3dfx cards (cannot handle more
than 256x256). It is possible that the Matrox card has better AGP
performance or that there still is a driver bug impairing AGP texturing in
the GeForce. I know people are looking at this. What do you think?

You can temporarily alleviate this by either adjusting textures to 16-bit,
reducing texture detail one notch or setting rendering for 16-bit --- or
getting a 64MB Quadro for $$$$.

William Ball
Creative Labs, Senior Technical Marketing Specialist
bball@creativelabs.com



------------------
/Valhall