a GTS in a disguise of an MX !!!

[irfan1982]

Hye Guys !

Thanks for all the wise advises you all have given now I have a bought an AGP Card that really impressed me a lot.

Since all you guys were recommending a GTS over the MX, I was looking for an GTS based card in the market when I saw the ASUS V7100 Deluxe Combo.

The ASUS V7100 Deluxe Combo is based on the nVIDIA GeForce2 MX but it really delivers performance almost like that of an GTS Card ! Believe me it really rocks the GTS. Even though the Card is based on the MX it fires out 700Million Texels/Sec compared to the normal MX card which gives the half amount at 350Million Texels/Sec & 800Million Texels of the GTS. I believe since this Card was released just a few months back the ASUS guys have revamped the MX into almost an GTS. I believe a lil overclocking can get this card running along the GTS ones.

I will try to get an GTS Card(Hercules 64MB) from my cousin
& get both the cards benchmarked to check out the REAL difference, Shall keep u posted.

Bye

[Rocket2Fun]

That's pretty interesting... a little hard to believe... but if it's true... that's great dude.
I know that my Asus v7700 GTS 32meg has provided me performance up there with some 64meg GTSs... So I really think that the Asus cards are really up there... but am MX matching a GTS
Post some Screen Shots of 3dmark scores... that would be a good point to prove your claims from

[Edited by Rocket2Fun on 05-28-2001 at 08:13 PM]

[Shark]

At this point, the best cards are based on the Kryo II, GF2 GTS/Pro, or the GF3.

The Kyro II/GF2 is a toss up. I chose the Kyro II.

The GF3 is hands down performance king, but is gonna cost you over twice as much.

An MX is a waste at this point... They're slaughtered by the Kyro II, and the memory bandwidth really is a problem on those MX cards.

Just my opinion, and everyone is entitled to my opinion...

[Shark]

Originally posted by irfan1982
The ASUS V7100 Deluxe Combo is based on the nVIDIA GeForce2 MX but it really delivers performance almost like that of an GTS Card ! Believe me it really rocks the GTS. Even though the Card is based on the MX it fires out 700Million Texels/Sec compared to the normal MX card which gives the half amount at 350Million Texels/Sec & 800Million Texels of the GTS.

Check the specs again, because I think you're confusing Mtexels with Mpixels.

GTS: 800 Mpixels/sec, 1600 Mtexels/sec
MX: 350Mpixels/sec, 700Mtexels/sec

The real killer is the memory bandwidth...
GTS: 5333 MB/sec
MX: 2700 MB/sec (I don't think that's the exact number)

At any rate, you're going to have to overclock your core to 400MHz and your memory to 333MHz (with SDR memory) to achieve GTS performance.

If you get the DDR memory, well, they cut the bus width for DDR in half so you'd have to overclock that to 667 MHz.

Let me condense my point: GTS performance from an MX isn't going to happen without something akin to liquid nitrogen.

[clutchy]

oh a funny guy, we have a funny guy in the forum... yeah i don't know about those kyro's i personally wouldn't ever buy one, but who knows. My roommates gts performs like shit and i would seriously recommend buying a more well known brand it makes a difference. kyro v. gts hands down gts, or the pro they're pretty inexpensive right now. glad you're happy with the kyro, but the name just pisses me off for some reason.

[LPMiller]

Still, if you are happy...great!

Now I personally wouldn't by an mx card today, though you can still get plenty good performance out of them, the Pro class isn't that much more expensive anymore. Plus the Kyro is pretty good too, for the same price - especially with the FSAA. A geforce 3 is out...I mean, we can dream, but it just isn't needed...yet.

Course, it depends what you do...I mean the MX doesn't suck.

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by clutchy
oh a funny guy, we have a funny guy in the forum... yeah i don't know about those kyro's i personally wouldn't ever buy one, but who knows. My roommates gts performs like shit and i would seriously recommend buying a more well known brand it makes a difference. kyro v. gts hands down gts, or the pro they're pretty inexpensive right now. glad you're happy with the kyro, but the name just pisses me off for some reason.

Well, that's an..interesting reason.

Seriously, it is a decent card...and it's nice to have competition out there.

[Shark]

I guess we should throw the GF2 Ultra in there, kinda splits the difference between the Kyro and the GF3.

Wow, nVidia is rocking the house... I mean, look at it... 3 of the top 4 video chips are nVidia... GF2 GTS/Pro, GF2 Ultra, and GF3...

Who is going to compete with these guys? Bitboys? hehehe.. Their so busy trying to improve their technology all the time they forgot to release some of it...

STMicro doesn't appear ready to put in a big time performance card... Maybe the Kyro III will be more than a budget card, but I'm certainly not holding my breath because nothing out of PowerVR has really been a top-of-the-line performer (not counting arcade machines, which've they've done some really cool stuff with).

ATI... Well, they are the closest, but they probably can't keep up with this release cycle, and their drivers suck. I really looked hard at the Radeon DDR... Until I saw the performance under Win2K, and man it is ugly. I mean the performance, not the image quality.

Good news (maybe), is that ATI has decided to start letting other companies make the cards while they concentrate on the chips. Works for nVidia, and trying to do it all apparently drove 3dfx into the ground.

My real worry is that no one will step up to challenge the nVidia machine, and we'll end up with less technological innovation and higher price tags.

[clutchy]

i would tend to say that nvidia was a thorn in 3dfx's side not the other way around. voodoo was mainstream back then not nvidia.

about the kyro, maybe it's ignorant of me, but i heard that it was a geforce 3dfx kinda mix of a card and that it was a little funky so i never checked it out for myself. and then i got all these little kids running around touting it and i wrote it off as a waste, maybe the little kids were right and it is ok... i'm willing to admit that, but the name still pisses the hell out of me, and i don't know why...

[Shark]

Originally posted by clutchy
about the kyro, maybe it's ignorant of me, but i heard that it was a geforce 3dfx kinda mix of a card and that it was a little funky so i never checked it out for myself. and then i got all these little kids running around touting it and i wrote it off as a waste, maybe the little kids were right and it is ok... i'm willing to admit that, but the name still pisses the hell out of me, and i don't know why...

I have always wondered how to pronounce Kyro... I always said, "kirro", but my buddy always says, "Kairo"... Does that make sense?

Anyway, the 3dfx/geforce mix idea is completely off base.

The Kyro works in a completely different manner than any card that 3dfx/nVidia/Matrox/ATI/Trident ever produced...

Anandtech is pretty in depth technically, if you're interested... Here's a link to information on the original Kyro... The only difference now with the Kyro II is a smaller chip that runs faster, paired with faster memory and much better drivers--but the technology hasn't changed.

Check it out:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1253&p=1

[Archeon]

Originally posted by Shark
I have always wondered how to pronounce Kyro... I always said, "kirro", but my buddy always says, "Kairo"... Does that make sense?
[/B]

I always say 'Kairo' too. Just sounds better to me. I also believe they chose that name to mock 3dfx/nvidia. I believe it refers to 'Cairo', capital of Egypt and home of the pyramids (= triangles! ) You gotta love that!

[GraingerGuy]

The Kyro 1 had a lot of compadability problems and what not, but with the Kyro 2, the worked out a lot of those kinks and made it into a really decent compedator. I'm actually looking into getting one maybe.

[irfan1982]

Look Guys !!! No matter what you all think about all those MXs,GTSs,Ultras,Kyros,GF3s.....a card which runs every game at a good frame rate matters !!! Man right now even an GTS is an extravagance ! What good does it do if it provides 10-20fps more than the MX. Actually u cant differentiate much between 30 & 40 fps !!! Isnt it ?

[irfan1982]

Opps I forgot one thing, look guys dont get too personal & attack anybody views or preferences here..Take it Coolly,
Bye

[The Monkey]

hmmm I don't know about others on this page
but during gaming you really can tell a difference between 30 and 40 fps. It's not that you see a difference... but like you are more accurate at higher frame rates. True you might not "see" a difference between 30-40 fps but you sure will feel it.

[Shark]

You also have to realize that it's not as though you get a static 30 fps... Sometimes it's 20, sometimes it's 40, and it averages out..

Believe me, when it dips to 20 you will see it, especially in a first person shooter.

[nemesis'O'rocket]

thx for the link.

[GraingerGuy]

irfan1982 - Yes, you really can't tell whether a game is running at 100 FPS or 110 FPS, but the thing is when a newer game comes out that taxes the card more than other games you will be able to run it at a higher frame rate.

example:
game 1 - you can run it at 100 FPS with a GeForceMX and 110 with a GeForce GTS Pro.

game 2 comes out - It bogs down the card so much that the MX runs it only at 25FPS while the GTS Pro is still chugging along at 35 making the game easier to play.

[Shark]

60 fps is perceived as smooth by most people, true. But many people can distinguish differences above that.

Interestingly, if the fps get too fast, they actually will appear to stutter again, moving faster than your eyes can keep up with... This hasn't been a problem yet...

Television is 30 fps (the exact number depending on your continent). Actual movies in theatres are just 24 fps.

This is misleading in computer terms. What happens when you pause a movie at home (back to 30 fps)? It's not a static image. It's blurry.

TV/Film is "interpolated", where they "average" two frames together. This helps create the illusion of smooth motion, and it doesn't look blurry when it's moving.

A computer, however, draws static images... Each frame is like a photograph. This technique requires higher frame rates to create the illusion of motion.

When 3dfx came out with the "T-buffer", motion blur was one of their new effects. In theory (and I confirmed this with Alf Covey at the time of the release of the V5), this could be constantly applied to a whole screen to make games look smooth at 24-30 fps.

However, Alf also pointed out to me that it would require a lot of fillrate to apply this technique to the whole screen--fillrate which could just as well be used to render traditionally at ~60 fps. Additionally, it would require a lot of work by game developers, and predicted it would not happen.