Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

G400,TNT2,V3,S3 Q3test Benchmarks at iXBT

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • G400,TNT2,V3,S3 Q3test Benchmarks at iXBT


    http://www.ixbt-labs.com/video/quake3test.shtml


  • #2
    I think I would much rather have this



    at 50fps than this



    at 64fps.

    Joel

    Of course that's just my opinion.

    [This message has been edited by Joel (edited 07-28-99).]
    Libertarian is still the way to go if we truly want a real change.

    www.lp.org

    ******************************

    System Specs: AMD XP2000+ @1.68GHz(12.5x133), ASUS A7V133-C, 512MB PC133, Matrox Parhelia 128MB, SB Live! 5.1.
    OS: Windows XP Pro.
    Monitor: Cornerstone c1025 @ 1280x960 @85Hz.

    Comment


    • #3
      At 50fps or 64fps you're not going to bother to stare at the walls are you? I didn't think so. Give me the 64fps. The images are very comparable in terms of quality, with maybe a slight edge to the top one that I'd never notice while in game, unless I stopped to die, er, I mean, "look at the wall".

      I assume 50fps is g400 and 64fps is probably tnt2-ultra? Either way, gimme the 64.

      Todd

      Comment


      • #4
        For me visual quality is important, because when I'm trying to snipe someone from a distance I want to be able to see clearly.

        Joel
        Libertarian is still the way to go if we truly want a real change.

        www.lp.org

        ******************************

        System Specs: AMD XP2000+ @1.68GHz(12.5x133), ASUS A7V133-C, 512MB PC133, Matrox Parhelia 128MB, SB Live! 5.1.
        OS: Windows XP Pro.
        Monitor: Cornerstone c1025 @ 1280x960 @85Hz.

        Comment


        • #5
          Come on Joel. If you're trying to "snipe somebody from across the level", the best thing you can do is increase your resolution. THAT is what will make the major difference in visibility.

          That being said, a faster card will allow you to run higher resolutions better (obviously), thus meaning that a faster card with acceptable image quality is far superior to a slower card with great image quality (for the case in question).

          Comment


          • #6
            Sniping someone in the distance doesn't even require visual quality, you just need to be able to resolve the target. Don't get me wrong...I'm all for good quality images, but the difference between those two images isn't worth sacrificing more than 1 or 2 fps in my mind.

            Ideally I'd like to have both...unreal is a good example. You get great imagery, but the gameplay has sucked on all the system's I've tried it on (except voodoo2) due to low framerate. For deathmatch games, I want a decent minimum of visual quality, and then fill my plate with framerate.

            Todd

            Comment


            • #7
              Well, I guess that's why since getting my G400 I don't play anything at less than 1024x768x32bit where it's supported. And if I was to believe the benchmarks that I get on my machine with Q2 and Q3 then I probally wouldn't play them at all. Because according to the benchmarks gameplay should suck big time, but it doesn't. Plus playing games is just a small percentage of what I do with my system anyway. So for me at least a card with the best visual quality with decent 3D gaming performance is what I need and the G400 fits that bill perfectly.

              Joel
              Libertarian is still the way to go if we truly want a real change.

              www.lp.org

              ******************************

              System Specs: AMD XP2000+ @1.68GHz(12.5x133), ASUS A7V133-C, 512MB PC133, Matrox Parhelia 128MB, SB Live! 5.1.
              OS: Windows XP Pro.
              Monitor: Cornerstone c1025 @ 1280x960 @85Hz.

              Comment


              • #8
                to me, this Review was kinda Biased, or atleast it has alot of Holes...

                First off, the Review states that Trilinear doesn't make any Visual Difference, and then proceeds to show a TNT2 screen shot...
                The problem is, that the TNT2 doesn't do Real Trilinear, but rather an Aproximation, and it's done in software which it then takes a conciderable performance hit with it enabled... Now as mentioned in the Review, the S3-4 and the G400 Both have very small performance hits with Trilinear, and that's cuz they do REAL trilinear in the hardware...
                and Then there is the Image itself, I have seen Trilinear with the S3-4 and it looked very nice, I think it was even a Q3A shot too...

                Now you have the Case of the Mysteriously disappearing Resolutions, what happened to the G400 and the V3 benchmarks at 1600x1200?? Seems strange they are missing, I know the cards are capable of that res. just like the TNT2... The S3-4 will also but I could understand leaving it off because at that point it's really slow and out of it's intended performance area...

                It's a nice Idea to put all the cards together and do the tests, it was well done but there are some serious holes and Missing features, or missing the explainations in ideology...
                the TNT2 would still be fastest, but, the G400's superior feature set and high quality rendering might have shinned brighter.. same goes for the S3-4...


                Craig

                Comment


                • #9
                  OK, call me blind, but those screenshots look almost identical... and when you're running around shooting people, as I tend to do in Quake3 (maybe it's just me), I tend not to notice that the colour on that waving banner or that those light flares have a gradient running through them...

                  Framerate is king! All hail maxfps!
                  Look, I know you think the world of me, that's understandable, you're only human, but it's not nice to call somebody "Vain"!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I too noticed the distinct lack of 1600 benchmarks.

                    Someone e-mail that IXBT-LABS dude and tell him he needs to do some benchmarks on the G400 & V3 in 1600? He made it seem like *only* the TNT2 could go up that high when that is false.

                    *** AS FOR the screenshots, one huge difference between the TNT2 & G400 was the deep BLACK at the lower end of the portal. TNT2's blacks were more like washed out grays.

                    Also the colors are far more vibrant, crisp, and *defined* on the G400.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'm sorry, but the savage 4 screenshot blows all the others out of the water. the others look almost identical image quality wise.

                      Does this mean that texture compression is going to give the savage 4 and permedia 3 cards far better image quality than the G400?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Lacking any kind of luck, G400 and V3 are down right ugly on the q3t, so faulty is their OGL offers. Too bad too long already.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          personally, I don't think you know what you're on about. Quake3 is for playing, it's not a sightseeing tour.

                          My V3, looking at that exact same flag in the exact same position gets' the following framerates... 640x480@100fps, 800x600@81fps, 1024x768@53fps, now tell me which one you'd rather look at, and don't give me the "but it's clearer" crap coz I'll just have to come over there and frag yo' ass! jeez guys, it's not something to get upset about.

                          Dave K
                          Look, I know you think the world of me, that's understandable, you're only human, but it's not nice to call somebody "Vain"!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm with agent on this one. I can't tell the difference. I'm sure the g400 looks better in real life, but I can't tell from those pictures.

                            I don't agree on the fps comments though. I know people who could very easily frag yo' ass with a P166/Millennium PCI 2MB at 320x200x8 @ 20fps (my brother for example, he has unbelievable reflexes, probably why he's a good hockey goalie too ).

                            My monitor sucks too much to let the Max shine anyway (I'm getting the Max in case my bonus this year will pay for a p817). I'm getting it more for the dual head than anything else. Given the choice, though, I'd take quality over quantity any day.

                            ------------------
                            Andrew Gallagher - andrew@agallagher.com
                            Asus P2B-S, PII-350, 64MB PC100, 12.7GB Quantum Fireball EX ATA-33, 3.2GB IBM Deskstar3 EIDE, 2x2.1GB Quantum Atlas I UWSCSI, Toshiba 6201 SCSI CD, WangDAT SCSI, MillG200 8MB (Anxiously awaiting my G400MAX), SBLive! Retail, Win98SE




                            [This message has been edited by agallag (edited 07-29-99).]
                            Lady, people aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard coated bastards with bastard filling. But I don't find them half as annoying as I find naive, bubble-headed optimists who walk around vomiting sunshine. -- Dr. Perry Cox

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Joel,
                              You're 'avin a radox.
                              The two pix are the same geezer.
                              (Apart from the doctored frame rates...)



                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X