What = What with NVidia chipsets?

[Warthog]

I see references to the NV25, the NV17, the NV30. I know the NV30 has no name yet, but which one is the GF2, GF3, GF4MX, GF4TI, etc. Also I could use the same info on the R200, R250 series. Thanks for the help.

Also just some advice if you don' mind. I am currently using a GF2 MX with a P3 800. I am going to upgrade the VC this year and the MB/CPU/RAM next year. My question is, should I just get an interim upgrade on my video card now like the GF3 Ti200, or go ahead and get a GF4 4200? That way I would at least have a shot of running Doom 3 when it comes out. So my choice are:

1. Upgrade to a GF3 Ti200 now and upgrade my MB/CPU/RAM and NV30 next year?
2. Upgrade to a GF4 4200 now and just upgrade my MB/CPU/RAM next year?

Thanks for your advice.

 

[BDawg]

I wouldn't buy either unless there's a game you're dying to play but can't. Just hold out for the NV30 now.

 

[Warthog]

"I wouldn't buy either unless there's a game you're dying to play but can't. Just hold out for the NV30 now."

Thanks for the advice, I have thought about that. I guess I should have mentioned I am a partial cheepskate; or I refuse to pay $300+ for a VC. That's what the NV30 will probably cost when it comes out. I have never payed more than $100 for a VC, but would probably go $150 for the 4200.

The games I am worried about are UT2003 and UT2. I would at least like to play 800x600 with high detail. I would settle for 640x480. I am a graphics wh*re. Graphics are equal with game play for me. Maybe I will just wait for the demo and see how my machine handles UT2003. Anand's CPU scaling acticle showed my GF2 MX at about 46 with the Asbestos level where the GF3 TI200 was at about 123. For me 46 FPS is just fine. However, I heard the Asbestos does not choke your system like some of the other levels. I may end up waiting like you said. Thanks again for the advice.

 

[MournSanity]

Just save up your money man. Hold off for the NV30. They will probably have a Lite version of it ala the Ti200 or Ti4200. I'm holding off for the best thing possible.

 

[merlocka]

nv4 - TnT
nv5 - TnT2
nv10 - Geforce256
nv11 - Geforce2 MX
nv15 - Geforce2 GTS/Pro/Ultra
nv17 - Geforce4 MX
nv20 - Geforce3
nv25 - Geforce4

 

[HowDoesItWork]

Holding out for the 'best' thing possible is a neverending game though. Nvidia and ATI both release new chipset at least once (generally twice) a year, so there is ALWAYS a bigger and badder product coming out 'in a couple months'. You could wait until you HAVE to upgrade (IE you get UT2003 and it runs like crap on your system, then just get the best card currently available at that time, within your budget.)

If you are a 'graphics whore' though, how do you take run 800x600 or 640x480? Really blocky resolutions.

 

[Warthog]

"If you are a 'graphics whore' though, how do you take run 800x600 or 640x480? Really blocky resolutions."

Maybe I should clarify. I don't like bland flat textures. I like bumpmapping like the Open GL S3TC patch in UT. I actually don't like the blurring that AA can cause.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Warthogg
"If you are a 'graphics whore' though, how do you take run 800x600 or 640x480? Really blocky resolutions."

Maybe I should clarify. I don't like bland flat textures. I like bumpmapping like the Open GL S3TC patch in UT. I actually don't like the blurring that AA can cause.

Same thing - I like nice looking textures, etc but not the blurring AA can cause. 800X600X32 is definately fine for me, anything higher is a bonus. I'd look into either a very cheap Ti200 or a cheap Ti4200 if I was you.

On a totally unrelated note, I just got an S-Video cable for my PS2 and Gamecube, and I can't believe the difference from regular composite video. I'll never go back again!