Skace-
Sorry I didn't respond to you last time, mush have missed your post all together(you gotta be a long winded SOB to get notice around here most of the time).
Yes I have played the test quite a bit, but not online. If you are having trouble on broadband I would be toasted on my (lousy @ss)56K. I'm with you holding onto my GeForce1 for right now, at least for a little bit longer
Robo-
You can only play the game if you purchase the "Pro" version unfortunately. I'd still dl it just to check out the visuals on the Demo portion(nature scene ownz joo:Q) I got the full dl right off without problem on my first shot, extremely odd as I probably have a worse connection then you do
Dave-
So what are those extra 2million transistors for?? What are they doing to work around the binning issue with high geometry loads? I have to keep shooting off at the mouth until you tell me
d@mnit[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]
What kind of numbers are you getting in 2K1 with those two boards btw Dave?
Rellik-
"Ben, what is your take on FSAA?"
I'm with you for the most part.
Robo is definately right that a game like NFS4 benefits a great deal more then something like Quake3 where IMHO it is worse for gameplay being on. Any sim type game that doesn't support mip mapping, or has poor mip mapping, truly does benefit from having it enabled. Running NFS4 I definately go 8x6x4 instead of 16x12x0, but that is an exception.
Overall, I'll take higher res in 99%+ of the games I play. If a board offers some good texture filtering in hardware that eliminates the texture aliasing in titles like NFS4 then I wouldn't use FSAA at all. "Jaggies" to me are definately better dealt with by upping the res then by utilizing FSAA.
FOr Quake3/UT type games I need to see clearly distant targets so I can camp and pick off people without getting my @ss fragged(and pissing of the "
Robo" type players greatly). With all that said however, the Radeon's FSAA is the least effective overall with the V5 being the best(well, if we don't count the GF3 which can run higher res and FSAA which looks pretty d@mn sweet).
Oh yeah, been meaning to PM you, it didn't line up for me Looks nice though, I like what you have done a lot
Sudheer Anne-
"Look for everybody that seems to doubt the impressiveness of the kyro II, mainly Ben Skywalker who seems to have a heavy bias towards nvidia, remember that the card only costs $150 dollars for the 64 MB version."
nVidia bias, no. Hardware T&L bias, HE!L YEAH
Does the fact that you can buy one with 64MB for $150 change my view? No, not at all. If they put out one with 32MB, hardware T&L, a full DX8 fetaure set and charged $300 for it then that would change my view
"The win2k drivers are excellent, scoring nearly identical to win98 drivers, so they don't need help there. also 2D quality is good, better than geforce. This card will absolutely rule the low end budget gaming sector of the market."
Not sure about that quite yet. At its' price it is going up against the "real" Radeon DDR and GTS, and that's before the GF3 launch. I hope it does well, the more players the better, but you can pick up an OEM Radeon DDR for ~$90 and between the two, even at the same price, I would definately be leaning towards the Radeon.
moocat
"Isn't the fact that people are comparing the lastest generation of cards to the V5 a very nice complement to 3DFX?"
Depends on how you look at it. The KyroII isn't meant as a high end offering, and it is relatively close to the same price point as the V5. The GeForce3 is the latest generation, and comparing a V5 to that isn't going to look like a compliment to 3dfx(particularly not when the Rampage would have been very competitive in all ways).