GEFORCE 3 WHEN!!!!!!

[falcon26 0]

Ok, I asked this about 2 or 3 days ago, and no one seems to want to answer it, but does anyone has any clue when the geforce 3 is due to hit stores?

 

Thanks, falcon26

[Ronin 0]

If someone knew or cared they would post the info.

 

Chill out!

[HarU 0]

The 3d Prophet III is going to be in a local store here in Cali where i live on April 10th.

[Damien 0]

What's all the excitement about, you can't want more power!!?? Is not a Geforce 2 Ultra enough?

 

Personally I would be far more interested in when the next Matrox card is comming (rumours abound at MURC that a G550 could be on it's way soon)

 

I'm still soldering on with my Matrox G400Max - which is getting a bit long in the tooth now, but it does keep me very happy with it's dual head capabilities (twinview - what a joke!) and the fact that the drivers actually seem to work (can't say I've had this experience with Nvidia products in the past)

[Brian Frank 0]

Uhh...Ive had no problems with nVidia's cards, or drivers. The ol Riva 128 ran fine, and so does the GF2 MX with nVidia drivers.

Whatever works for you.

If you dont do a lot of gaming I guess the Matrox cards would do you very well.

ATI would be much better--if they would refine their drivers in general, especially under Win2k.

But kudos to Matrox though for getting drivers out first for Win2k.

 

Let me ask this: Who in their right mind would spend $600 for one component. I have yet to spend over $200 on one single piece of hardware. You can buy a new, albeit just a word processor and net surfing machine, for that price.

Also, this is just the first GF3--plain GF3--just wait til the GF3 Ultra comes out.

I think theres a point where some components prices are insane.

Id take one if I won it, but I sure as hell wouldnt buy it.

[clutch 1]

I would spend that much on a video card if I thought it would be worth it. Hell, I just spent that much on a cat tree for my cat to hang out on. Money is relative, therefore so is price. I am not saying that charging that much is necessarlity viable for the long term, but technology is not a long term proposition anyway. It costs a lot to get new technology out the door and they want to make up for as much of their investment as soon as possible. Over time it will trickle down to a "bread-and-butter" price point and the low-end users will be happy.

 

------------------

Regards,

 

clutch

[Dragon-Lord 0]

I am running the Geforce3 on a 1.6ghz P4 and I have to say it is S-W-E-E-T! $600 seems steep regardless of the power, so I will probably wait until the price drops before I buy one for my system at home. But, as Ferris says, "if you have the means, I highly recommend you pick one up."

 

:}

[PsychoSword 0]

I don't know what the excitement is all about, I've seen the benchmarks and the GF3 actually did worse on some tests than the GF2 Ultra. nVidia's probably going to use all the hype surrounding their new card to release an inferior product. At least it wouldn't surprise me if that happened. I'm not real happy with their business practices either of stealing other companies technologies and then buying/absorbing the company they are being sued by for patent infringement. a la 3dfx.

[Brian Frank 0]

If you think nVidia's crooked, then whats that make Rambus? Just read the article at Toms Hardware concerning this. He tells exactly why he doesnt like Rambus, and I totally agree. Rambus seems like they'll do anything to get RDRAM out and down consumers throats. I will boycott any product using RDRAM as long as possible. Any company that uses unethical means of promoting a product probably has a sorry prodcut that is just plain sh*t. RDRAM is just plain SH*T!

[Feral 0]

I havent posted in a long time.. But Paying 500+ dollars... For a Video card.... Is not my cup of tea.. However.. I could Spend that money on the new Xbox... And have the same relative power of said card anyway..

 

 

 

 

------------------

When the world comes to a halt, Hold The F*** ON!!!

[Dragon-Lord 0]

As I mentioned above, I wasn't intending to buy a GF3 anytime soon. But I was just GIVEN one yesterday...and it rules tremendously.

 

Sometimes...just sometimes, life is unexpectedly good.

 

:}

[clutch 1]

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Feral:
I havent posted in a long time.. But Paying 500+ dollars... For a Video card.... Is not my cup of tea.. However.. I could Spend that money on the new Xbox... And have the same relative power of said card anyway.. </font>

...and wind up buying your games all over again so that they are compatible with the system.


------------------
Regards,

clutch

[BladeRunner 0]

Bah, GeForce III.

Three days ago I bought a GeForce2 Ultra card.

Managed to source the Gainward Ultra500 Golden Sample (The Gainwards are clocked high by default and use faster memory etc)

VAT & Delivery, all for £270.

Lot less that the £350+VAT that a GeForce 3 would set me back.

It gives me more than I need now, and in 12 months+ time when I'm looking at upgrading again prices will be a lot lower.

GeForce 3, for those that just MUST have the fastest 3DMark 2001 scores.

[sapiens74 0]

You know If I didnt have a card at all and was building a new system a GF3 would be an option, but I got a GF2 and 600 bones is too much to get nominal FPS in my games that already run well. For that money I'd buy a better CPU or maybe a 15k rpm SCSI drive.

 

 

Just my 2 cents

[imtim83 0]

Hi Everyone right now the video card i own is a voodoo 3 2000 pci. I know voodoo is sad and was brought out. I am getting a new video card whenever i can get money but i was wondering since i have such a low end video card right now should i just wait a while for the GF 3 to come down in price?

and btw how much money will it become cause i sorta dont want to spend anymore than $200 or $250 really

inless its worth it.

btw does the geforce 3 speed up your system itself or just games really?

curious

and it supports win2k pro really well right?

i may just get a geforce mx or geforce gts , or geforce 2 ultra , who knows

dont think no ATI video card.

but i think i would go with a Elsa company for a gefocrce card but not sure yet

 

 

thanks

[Dragon-Lord 0]

For me, the extra zestiness at very high resolutions (1600x1200) would be worth it, since I do a lot of high-end 3D on my system. The GF1 and 2 gave me a lot of bandwidth limitations at that resolution.

 

But now, with my GF3, I can turn on all settings in Q3 for example, and still win games at 1280 resolution. For 3D, I can model and animate with the Quincux AA and anistrophic texture filtering on and it is very smooth indeed. As drivers and games/apps are written to take advantage of GF3, I only expect this to get better and better.

 

It is hard to quantify with old style game benchmarks, but the GF3 also has superior 2D image quality. Easily on par with the previous top of class Matrox cards. Even through a switchbox, I am getting crystal clear displays with excellent color and contrast, when my old GF1 DDR was quite muddy in comparison.

 

yeehaw, this board rocks...

 

:}

[BladeRunner 0]

Sir,

I am affraid you are talking rubbish.

The GF3 does not have superior 2D quality.

The NVidia cards, yes even the GF3, are still not as good as even the ATI in 2D, the Matrox cards still sit a long way from NVidia.

Have you actually sat there and looked at all three?

Well yes you have seen the GF3, from your post you own one.

I am doubting you have looked at all three manufacturers and compared under the same resolution on the same monitor.

NVidia still do not have decent 2D quality - please do not try and compare it to Matrox, they are in a different league.

[Dragon-Lord 0]

I have compared all three side by side (because I have all three on hand), and stand by my previous statement.

 

More so, reviews are springing up on the net confirming my position that the GF3 has superior 2D image quality to its predecessors and rivals that of the Matrox series. I will try and find some and post them here for you, but no doubt you will start coming across them as well.

 

I will agree this is a subjective argument, but at 1600x1200x32bpp (on a 21" Hitachi monitor) I am confident in my assertion that I for one am seeing noticeably improved image quality and color vibrancy across all 2D and 3D applications.

 

Since I do own one, I can say this quite confidently. If you do not, then I am not quite sure how you can dismiss my assertion out of hand...

 

:}

[BladeRunner 0]

Your correct, I don't own one, however I have seen one in operation.

On a standard 1280x1024 @ 32bit colour the Matrox G400 was noticeably better with 2D quality.

Yes I would be very interested to see any reviews you can find to back up your statement because I simply think you wont find any.

The NVidia range of cards have always suffered from their 2D quality - this hasn't been addressed with the GeForce 3.

The aditional features of the GF3 don't add anything to 2D.

Look at the differences between a GF2 Ultra and a GF3 - none of the new features have been added to improve 2D quality.

The Matrox line of cards are still unbeatable at 2D - That is my very few PC manufacturers will place NVidia cards into business workstations - the quality isn't there.

[Dragon-Lord 0]

Actually, it was a review mentioning 2D quality that got me to do a side-by-side eval (still can't find it now, doh!). I was dubious as well, for the reasons you mentioned, but sure enough I can switchbox flip between two machines (one GF1DDR and one GF3) on the same monitor with the same settings and definitely see a clarity difference. Maybe it is just better signal strength or something. Regardless, this is a subjective issue and I doubt anyone would pick the GF3 purely based on this issue. :}

[BladeRunner 0]

Well that's very true

Anybody picking a GF3 because they use some 2D applications all day long need their heads looking at.

[clutch 1]

There are others that I have seen, but here is one review stating that the GF3 has awesome 2D performance:

 

http://www.avault.com/hardware/print_review.asp?review=geforce3

 

"2D Performance and Quality: This is the first Nvidia based card that provides us with high quality 2D images. Resolutions all the way up to 1600x1200 were crisp and clear with vibrant, well saturated colors. The color quality and clarity is right there at the very top of the heap with ATI and Matrox. Speed is not as good as we would have liked, but it was within acceptable ranges."

 

If I can find the other two that I read before, I will post the links.

 

------------------

Regards,

 

clutch

[Dragon-Lord 0]

Just came to post the review I finally found and here Clutch has already found it. That's one of them. Thanks!

 

I think you will be seeing more...

 

:}

[PsychoSword 0]

I've seen the pictures side by side of the Radeon and Geforce3 and the first thing I noticed was the sharp difference in picture quality. The Geforce3 looks much cleaner and smoother than the Radeon. Previous all I heard about was how much better picture the Radeon was than the Geforce2. I think maybe Nvidia has invested in some higher quality image filters for their cards no? I know the Geforce and GF2's filters were definetly not as good as Radeon's.

 

[This message has been edited by PsychoSword (edited 10 April 2001).]

[ThC 129 0]

if i had the means i would get a GF3 even though its way ahead of its time i would love to see the HRAA of this card. I would not pay the money for a P4 though since 1. the whole architecture of the processor is going to change and 2. RDRAM ughhh no thank you