StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A friend of mine recently let me borrow Vice City to see if it could run on my computer. My computer meets at least the minimum requirements to run it, but VC looked really fucked up, almost Tron-ish. I realized my video card (Voodoo 4) was no longer installed for some reason, and I couldn't find the install disc, so I downloaded some drivers off of Voodoofiles.com

http://www.voodoofiles.com/8611 are the drivers I downloaded.

Now when I try to run VC, I can at least see the opening cutscene, which used to be completely screwed up, but immediately once it gets past that, the computer goes into the Blue Screen of Death, and restarts on me.

I hate to say this, but maybe you should consider a new card.
Or try to get help from the voodoo community, they're the ones more likely to be in situations like yours.
I think the last game i ran on a voodoo was Shogo or Quake 2.

There might be a driver incompatibility with VC. Unfortunately, as 3dfx is long dead, there won't be any new drivers out.

I don't like saying stuff like this, but really, you can get a better card for 50$, are you that much strapped for cash?

I probably will buy a new card. What do you guys recommend?

The Radeon 9600 is a good choice and can be had for around $105 (check pricewatch). If you want to spend a little more, the Radeon 9800 is around $170 and will give you about 40% better performance. I really wouldn't go any cheaper right now as you sacrifice performance on games coming out in the next few months.

I like nVidia just fine, but at this price point, they really don't have a decent competitor to the Radeon 9600/9800 so until the release the fx 5700, I would go ATI

The Kernel wrote:The Radeon 9600 is a good choice and can be had for around $105 (check pricewatch). If you want to spend a little more, the Radeon 9800 is around $170 and will give you about 40% better performance. I really wouldn't go any cheaper right now as you sacrifice performance on games coming out in the next few months.

I like nVidia just fine, but at this price point, they really don't have a decent competitor to the Radeon 9600/9800 so until the release the fx 5700, I would go ATI

I would reccomend staying away from Nvidia at all, with all their driver troubles

An ATI All-in-Winder Pro is good too. I have one that is several years old and it still runs every new thing I have gotten lately. You can't go wrong with ATI

Isolder74 wrote:An ATI All-in-Winder Pro is good too. I have one that is several years old and it still runs every new thing I have gotten lately. You can't go wrong with ATI

which one? and remember, AiW is only if you want to hook it up with media stuff

Ace Pace wrote:

The Kernel wrote:The Radeon 9600 is a good choice and can be had for around $105 (check pricewatch). If you want to spend a little more, the Radeon 9800 is around $170 and will give you about 40% better performance. I really wouldn't go any cheaper right now as you sacrifice performance on games coming out in the next few months.

I like nVidia just fine, but at this price point, they really don't have a decent competitor to the Radeon 9600/9800 so until the release the fx 5700, I would go ATI

I would reccomend staying away from Nvidia at all, with all their driver troubles

The "driver problems" that nVidia is having is with DirectX 9 games (that make heavy use of PS 2.0) that don't exist yet aside from Halo. Anyways, nVidia's Det. 50 is almost done and the whole Half-Life 2 thing looks like a big marketing ploy more then anything else.

I think it is a bad time to buy nVidia because they don't have a decent price/performance competitor with the 9600/9800 non-pro. nVidia doesn't have any driver problems to speak of, it's just a lot of inflated hype based on HL2 beta performance numbers.

HL2, and Halo, and Aquamark2, and 3dmark03, and anything that uses Dx9, and it's not magically going away with the detonators 50. There are reports of very poor image quality and/or missing objects on screen as the drivers try to get a few more fps.

Shogoki wrote:HL2, and Halo, and Aquamark2, and 3dmark03, and anything that uses Dx9, and it's not magically going away with the detonators 50. There are reports of very poor image quality and/or missing objects on screen as the drivers try to get a few more fps.

Do your homework next time before you start spouting your ATI fanboy crap.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1896

That benchmark is actually being discussed here @ ArsTechnica along with the person who did the tests.

According to 3DCenter, the latest nVidia drivers are doing some image quality tricks relating to trilinear filtering in Direct3D mode.

Anyways, Anandtech's conclusion is:

Right now NVIDIA is at a disadvantage; ATI's hardware is much easier to code for and the performance on Microsoft's HLSL compiler clearly favors the R3x0 over the NV3x. NVIDIA has a long road ahead of them in order to improve their compilers to the point where game developers won't have to hand-code special NV3x codepaths, but for now ATI seems to have won the battle. Next year will be the year of DX9 titles, and it will be under the next generation of games that we will finally be able to crown a true DX9 winner. Until then, anyone's guess is fair game.

ATI is still the recommendation, but NVIDIA is not a bad card to have by any stretch of the imagination. We still urge our readers not to buy a card until the game they want to play shows up on the street. For those of you who need a card now, we'll be doing a value card round up as part of this series as well.

Arg, my comp now goes into the Blue Screen whenever I play GTAIII now! Apparently this file is causing it: 3DFXVSM.DLL DAMN YOU 3DFX!! Im going to shop around for a new card this weekend, but what do I do to fix this for now?

Phongn,

The conclusion I had was that nVidia is at a price/performance disadvantage which Anand's conclusion supports. However, driver irregularities have been exaggerated and the performance issues seem to be fixed nicely in the Det 50's which will be released within a week or two.

3DCenter is actually using a slightly older set of drivers, and I haven't seen any real evidence so far for the trillinear irregularity. Anandtech's screenshots don't show evidence of any problems and his screenshots were rather exaustive (remember that if there were problems with trilinear, we would see evidence in the AF screenshots.

Jadeite wrote:Arg, my comp now goes into the Blue Screen whenever I play GTAIII now! Apparently this file is causing it: 3DFXVSM.DLL DAMN YOU 3DFX!! Im going to shop around for a new card this weekend, but what do I do to fix this for now?

Dude, you do nothing. You can't expect a video card that wasn't even DX7 hardware that doesn't have a true DX9 driver to run a DX8/9 game. Sorry, but 3DFx is gone, and nothing you can do can bring them back.

Want my advice? Go to pricewatch and order one of the cards I mentioned. It will take a few days but you will save a significant amount of money over Fry's and Best Buy. I'll say this for everyone:

BRICK AND MORTAR STORES SERIOUSLY OVERCHARGE FOR VIDEOCARDS!!!

The Kernel wrote:The conclusion I had was that nVidia is at a price/performance disadvantage which Anand's conclusion supports. However, driver irregularities have been exaggerated and the performance issues seem to be fixed nicely in the Det 50's which will be released within a week or two.

OTOH, Gabe has accused nVidia of having screenshot-detection code, where the GPU will then render a non-cheating image. I remain skeptical though pleased that nVidia doesn't appear to be doing the blatant cheating the early 50-series drivers did.

phongn wrote:

The Kernel wrote:The conclusion I had was that nVidia is at a price/performance disadvantage which Anand's conclusion supports. However, driver irregularities have been exaggerated and the performance issues seem to be fixed nicely in the Det 50's which will be released within a week or two.

OTOH, Gabe has accused nVidia of having screenshot-detection code, where the GPU will then render a non-cheating image. I remain skeptical though pleased that nVidia doesn't appear to be doing the blatant cheating the early 50-series drivers did.

I wouldn't take Gabe too seriously given that ATI paid over $6 million for their distribution deal for HL2. nVidia was taken totally by surprise with the whole HL2 benchmarking debacle which just goes to show how messed up it really was. It was a pure publicity stunt as the performance gainst in Halo show us that it is quite possible that nVidia's new drivers can make up for the appaling performance we saw. It is totally pointless to release a benchmark for a game you can't play wouldn't you say?

I'm not saying that nVidia hasn't done some benchmark trickery in the past but so has ATI and we need to call them on it when we see it and tell them we won't accept this kind of behavior. So far, it appears to be working quite well.

The Kernel wrote: Do your homework next time before you start spouting your ATI fanboy crap.

LOL, who's the one going apeshit, again? I didn't even mention ATI, guess anybody who says anything about nVidia must be an ATI fanboy, right?

I hadn't seen this article, it's indeed interesting, and surprising too, I'm actually glad they are pulling their stuff together, as 2 friends of mine who spent a few hundred dollars on their new video cards waiting for HL2 were feeling very disappointed and ripped off. We still have to wait to find out, anyway.

EDIT: Oops, forgot to add quote.

The Kernel wrote:I wouldn't take Gabe too seriously given that ATI paid over $6 million for their distribution deal for HL2.

It's also quite possible that while ATI did pay for the deal, the partner was initially chosen based on performance. Furthermore, if you want to say "Gabe was paid off" - which is what you're more or less implying - you'll have to come up with something more concrete.

nVidia was taken totally by surprise with the whole HL2 benchmarking debacle which just goes to show how messed up it really was.

I'm hardly surprised here, considering that the 40-series Detonators could not run HLSL (DX9) that effectively.

It was a pure publicity stunt as the performance gainst in Halo show us that it is quite possible that nVidia's new drivers can make up for the appaling performance we saw. It is totally pointless to release a benchmark for a game you can't play wouldn't you say?

The graphics engine, AFAIK, has actually been completed - or at least the critical render portion has. I wouldn't lightly dismiss it. Furthermore, it's an architectural problem with the NV30-type core so it won't be so easily fixed.

Finally, what shader programs does Halo/PC use? It was originally designed for a much less capable GPU: AFAIK the porting company did not add enormously greater complexity to it?

I'm not saying that nVidia hasn't done some benchmark trickery in the past but so has ATI and we need to call them on it when we see it and tell them we won't accept this kind of behavior. So far, it appears to be working quite well.

It seems to be more the reaction of nVidia (hear no evil, see no evil...), especially with the early 50-series that they were spreading around (as opposed to the newer ones) than the fact that they did it. ATI at least owned up with the infamous Quack 3 incident.

Ace Pace wrote:

Isolder74 wrote:An ATI All-in-Winder Pro is good too. I have one that is several years old and it still runs every new thing I have gotten lately. You can't go wrong with ATI

which one? and remember, AiW is only if you want to hook it up with media stuff

128 bit one I forget the fancy chip name for it. I got the one with the most Video RAM they were selling at the time.

Isolder74 wrote:

Ace Pace wrote:which one? and remember, AiW is only if you want to hook it up with media stuff

128 bit one I forget the fancy chip name for it. I got the one with the most Video RAM they were selling at the time.

there are 2 sets of 128MB ram

Radeon 9700 Pro & All in Wonder
Radeon 9800 Pro & All in Wonder

and 1 card thats 256 RAM

Radeon 9800 Pro

Ace Pace wrote:

Isolder74 wrote:

Ace Pace wrote:which one? and remember, AiW is only if you want to hook it up with media stuff

128 bit one I forget the fancy chip name for it. I got the one with the most Video RAM they were selling at the time.

there are 2 sets of 128MB ram

Radeon 9700 Pro & All in Wonder
Radeon 9800 Pro & All in Wonder

and 1 card thats 256 RAM

Radeon 9800 Pro

That's 128 bit graphics rating! Or do you not remember 64 bit, ect before everyone started using the chip name instead of the bandwidth to advertise their cards

Isolder74 wrote:

Ace Pace wrote:

Isolder74 wrote: 128 bit one I forget the fancy chip name for it. I got the one with the most Video RAM they were selling at the time.

there are 2 sets of 128MB ram

Radeon 9700 Pro & All in Wonder
Radeon 9800 Pro & All in Wonder

and 1 card thats 256 RAM

Radeon 9800 Pro

That's 128 bit graphics rating! Or do you not remember 64 bit, ect before everyone started using the chip name instead of the bandwidth to advertise their cards

ops, then I forgot

phongn wrote: It's also quite possible that while ATI did pay for the deal, the partner was initially chosen based on performance. Furthermore, if you want to say "Gabe was paid off" - which is what you're more or less implying - you'll have to come up with something more concrete.

Not only did ATI pay for the deal, but aparently nVidia was bidding for the distribution deal as well (ref. The Inquirer). I wasn't claiming inpropriety, simply that we need to take these HL2 benchmarks with a grain of salt.

I'm hardly surprised here, considering that the 40-series Detonators could not run HLSL (DX9) that effectively.

Indeed.

The graphics engine, AFAIK, has actually been completed - or at least the critical render portion has. I wouldn't lightly dismiss it. Furthermore, it's an architectural problem with the NV30-type core so it won't be so easily fixed.

It's still beta as long as it isn't in the hands of gamers. What you are saying makes sense, but there a several factors here, not the least of which that the original DX9 benchmark (DOOM III) showed nVidia AHEAD of ATI. My point is that although the HL2 benchmark is interesting, it doesn't really give us much of an indication of final performance.

Finally, what shader programs does Halo/PC use? It was originally designed for a much less capable GPU: AFAIK the porting company did not add enormously greater complexity to it?

Gearbox added a great deal of DX9 PS 2.0 code to Halo. This is why the GeForce FX gets a 65% boost with the Det. 50's.

It seems to be more the reaction of nVidia (hear no evil, see no evil...), especially with the early 50-series that they were spreading around (as opposed to the newer ones) than the fact that they did it. ATI at least owned up with the infamous Quack 3 incident.

They finally owned up, at least as much as ATI did. But I'm not here to defend either company; what they did was wrong. But all I care about is getting the best price/performance card for modern games. Right now, that accolade goes to ATI, with a close second by nVidia. The 5700 looks like a solid 9600XT competitor and should make the holiday lineup competetive until NV40/R400 come out.