Geforce 2 GTS £263.68 at jungle!!!!!!!!

[log]

jeez that is a ****ing rip of for god sake who the **** is going to pay that, i could get 2 normal geforce cards for that price and that is before their price falls when the geforce 2 comes out in 8 days

[Faking]

Its not as big a rip-off as the new voodoos though. At least it boasts a high level of performance. Must admit though I'm a bit disappointed. Looks like Nvidia as market leader is trying to bump their margins up. Additionally creative are probably doing the same being the biggest geforce reseller.

The only positive is that it looks like every man and his dog will be making a geforce 2 so the resellers margins should become very thin resulting in more reasonable prices.

[MA§TER]

I Pre Ordered my GF GTS2 on 1/05/00 from my local Game Store, it will only cost me £249.99
http://www.game.uk.com

------------------
THE MA§TER HAS ARRIVED ALL BOWDOWN

[ACE Orchid]

"Its not as big a rip-off as the new voodoos though"

Hehehe - The Voodoo5 5500 is like £50 cheaper and it performs on a par with the GTS....unless you wanna play at 640x480 in 16bit colour, where the GTS does win slightly. So that comment is a bit odd to say the least.

Orc. :)

[336th WADE]

only on a high spec system, which most of us don't have the money to get a 800MHz PIII.

Put them both on a 500MHz system and the voodoo5 5500 will get its arse kicked by any of the GeForce cards.

[Faking]

ACE, first you try and tell us speed isn't important and now its £50 cheaper. Well sorry but it's £10 cheaper so far and we haven't even had the 'cheaper' manufacturers post their prices. And as for performance take a look at this site which gives performance based on various CPU's for the new cards - The new voodoo gets kicked by up to 25% (on the fastest processor) and even the old geforce is much faster! And the new voodoo is oh so poor on slow CPU's.
http://www.shugashack.com/onearticle.x/6445

And then take a look at this article written by the developers of soldier of fortune. Your shiny new voodoo ain't going to run any faster than a TNT2 ultra on this game.
http://trenches.igg.net/projects/columns/john.shtml

For those who can't be bothered here is his conclusion.

Soldier of Fortune is completely transform bound, we do not touch the texture limits or the fill rate of most modern cards; even on a top end machine. For our next project, we will have some form of level of detail in the models to reduce the number of transforms to be done, increase texture size, and increase the splendour of the effects, utilising many more particles.
Personally, I think video card manufacturers need to divert some of their attention from developing obscenely high fill rates to optimising the transform path of their drivers. This is clearly where Soldier of Fortune would benefit the most, and as poly counts increase, where many other games would too. Hardware T&L is the way to go.

This is the only game I have that I'm not happy with the speed of play. BTW I have a PIII 700 with TNT2 Ultra. More of these sorts of games to come over the next year.

If I were you I'd leave your 3d rantings until 3dfx have a competitive product, hopefully this xmas. I used to have a voodoo 2 believe it or not and it lasted me the longest of any of the accelerators I've had. So its not that I'm anti-3dfx but open your eyes mate. On paper it's beaten handsomely and in practise.

[ACE Orchid]

1.) Soldier of fortune eh? Strange how Nvidia fans can't shup up about that game. Probably because it's one of the few games that the GeForce actually does any good on because of the T&L issue. Same for Q3A and 3DMark2000 - that represents a VERY small part of the games market. I've no doubt T&L will take off - but for the moment it's not happening as fast as Nvidia would like.

2.)So basically Nvidia are saying "everybody should own a PII500Mhz or less" then? weird, Nvidia make out they're so ahead of the game when it comes to technology, yet they want everybody to play on an "older" CPU? Strange that. Yes, the GeForce does pull ahead of the Voodoo5 on such a system, but it's not like the V5 is slow by any means! You're only defence on this seems to be "but people might not be able to afford a better CPU".....but they can afford to spend £200+ on a video card????

3.) Jungle.com GeForce GTS £264. DabsDirect Voodoo5 5500 £207. Erm, that's not ten quid we're talking hear - that's a significant difference. Yes, the GTS will drop in price, but so will the V5. I'm sure 3dfx will price the V5 well below the GTS at every turn.

4.) Let's say you HAVE got a PII600MHz or better CPU, then it makes no sense to go for a GeForce at all. The Voodoo5 is every bit as fast at higher res no matter what the game (or if the game uses T&L) and not only that you get a good FSAA option too - and it will still produce good fps as well (if that's all you care about). The FSAA on the GeForce is so slow it's as good as useless. End of story. And the V5 is cheaper too.

It's all very well saying "but the Voodoo sucks on slower CPU's", but most people who are buying a computer NOW or upgrading a CPU NOW are more than likely going for a PIII600 or better. So you can't use that as a defence for long. I don't need to open my eyes thanks. It's you nvidia people that are suddenly backtracking and crying "640x480, 16bit col, Soldier of Fortune, old CPU's, etc, etc".
For somebody buying a computer now, or somebody who has recently upgraded their CPU, I would point them straight to the Voodoo5. And I've seen nothing so far to convince me otherwise.

[Silent.B.Deadly]

Erm, excuse me for butting in but,

I have had a p3 500 for over a year now and i am eagerly awaiting the voodoo5. now you are all talking like its an OAP. Are you trying to tell me that buying a V5 isn't going to substantially improve my PC's gaming performance?

[ACE Orchid]

What graphics card have you got at the moment mate?

[336th WADE]

u have to remember that the greater percentage of ppl out there don't know or don't have the confidence to get a new processor and mobo and do some twiddling. They find it much easier to get a GFX card to boost their performance and give their PC a longer life for a year until they think about getting a new one. So those who don't want to do this will mainly look at performance on their system. People looking for GFX cards will generally have a system older than 12 months meaning that only a few will purchase the new voodoo's and will go for GeForce's and reap the benefits of T&L.

[ACE Orchid]

So like I said, Nvidia are aiming at people with 12 month old computers then? That's very forward thinking.

And if people don't know (or don't care) enough about computers to try upgrading their CPU, then I'm afraid the strong Voodoo/3dfx brand name will be the first thing they think of, most likely, when they consider a new graphics card. They probably wouldn't know what "T&L" was if it jumped up and bit them.

[Faking]

As you well know the jungle ain't cheap. Its price for the voodoo5 is £242. Must admit that dabs direct price looks a little more reasonable. Anyway to answer your points ACE

1) Yes. That is the future. Big games will require T&L in future. I expect my graphics card to last at least a year not 3 months. In the next year we'll see a shedload of games like this one. Why do we normally upgrade - to get more frame rates. I don't know if you followed the Quake II lineage but basically Kingpin used the Quake II engine and required twice the horsepower to run. Then Soldier of Fortune using the same engine required four times the power to run. We'll see the same thing with the Q3 games. Already they are saying Elite Force is a lot slower than Quake 3. John Carmack even said that himself. He said he'd added a whole lot of features which couldn't be used in a multi-player game for performance reasons but expected them to be used by 3rd party products. You are going to need a whole lot of speed for these games over the next year. The only time the voodoo5 gets close to the Geforce is when the memory bandwidth comes into play. Both have similar bandwidth and once that becomes the limiting factor they pull very similar frame rates. Thats why your post on 1024x768 at 32 bit shows similar frame rates to the geforce 2. However as the CPU eats more of the time (as with upcoming games) less frames are pushed out and at the same resolution the geforce will eat the voodoo5 the same as it does at 640x480 (greater than 25% faster).

2) See explanation above. We need all the horsepower we can get. The fastest graphics card can only help. And yes, I upgrade my CPU once a year but I doubt many do. And when I do upgrade its cause it ain't fast enough anymore.

3) As you should know jungles price is £242 for the voodoo 5 so comparing like for like there is £20 difference.

4) The voodoo5 is not as fast. Show me a benchmark where the voodoo5 beats the geforce (except for your beloved anti-aliasing which is only for people with 15" monitors anyway - and even then the geforce 2 beats it at 640x480). We can see benchmarks where the voodoo5 is smoked by the geforce 2. Basically as games get more complex the voodoo5 will be left well behind. You aren't going to tell me multi-texturing in a single pass is a poor feature.

To sum it all up if you are buying a graphics card to play the games you have played for the last 12 months and assuming the V5 is substantially cheaper you might consider it. Other than that I can't think of any reason. The thing that gets me with the V5 is that even the budget card savage 2000 smokes the V5.

The voodoo5 6000 will be the king when they release it in July, but the people buying that card won't mind upgrading their CPU every 6 months either.

Personally I think people should buy the geforce 1 at the moment. It's substantially cheaper than either card and performs quite similarly in a lot of respects. Having said that I can't stand not buying the latest so its the geforce 2 for me.

[Faking]

And I forgot to mention about your point 4. Soldier of Fortune is T&L bound. The voodoo5 will pull nowhere near the frame rates of a geforce 2, even at high resolution. Cause it's Transform bound it'll pull no better than a TNT2 Ultra at 640x480 although you may be able to do this at high res. Take a look at the frame rates in that link I mentioned for Soldier of Forutne. The geforce 1 is 50% faster than anything. I expect the geforce 2 will be faster still because of its upgraded T&L. My CPU isn't even a month old yet and my computer is struggling with this game cause I don't have T&L. What hope will I have with this xmas's games which will be even more demanding - unless of course I upgrade my CPU, mobo and ram again which seems to be what you're suggesting.

Just been playing SOF online and that prompted me to come back and post here. I've taken the graphics card out of the equation by running 16-bit at 640x480 and it's still jerky as anything. Your suggesting I just live with it as a voodoo5 will do nothing to help me on this game. And yes I've just bought a new CPU (and not a cheap one) which seems to be your other suggestion. Bring me T&L heaven. Should make Messiah look a lot nicer as well.

[This message has been edited by Faking (edited 13-05-2000).]

[ACE Orchid]

The benchmarks at HardOCP are done without FSAA - he concludes "I do have to say that I think 3dfx is going to walk away with the quality prize when you bring FSAA into the mix. Also it is something we can USE IN GAMES TODAY."

So there's your answer. The GeForce scores higher at 640x480 (the V5 manages a pathetic 130fps - LOL), but at sensible resolutions they are as good as the same. If he had turned FSAA on it would have looked very embarrassing for the GeForce, while the V5 would have pumped out playable fps. So OK, the Voodoo5 isn't as fast as the GeForce in Q3A...........by 3 fps.....big deal. Not to mention the fact the Gold Drivers for Voodoo5 are still first gen - they expect performance to increase by as much as 25% with later revisions, especially at lower resolutions. Granted, we'll actually have to wait and see if that happens, but still...

And you can rubbish FSAA all you want, but Nvidia included it too, so they must think there's a place for it. Oh no, I just remembered, they only did it so they could SAY they did it......and then did a p1ss poor job of actually TRYING to do it. And what's all this about FSAA being for people with 15" monitors....can you please explain how that works? Me no understand.

And now a quote from 3dfx:
The GeForce2 GTS achieves nowhere near 1600Mtexels/sec. in real 32-bit applications, as nVidia knows. A simple proof is to look at Quake3 time demos for 1600x1200, 32bpp, a completely fill-rate limited case. In even the most skewed comparisons the GeForce2 GTS achieves no more than 3fps higher than a pre-release Voodoo5 5500. The 5500 and the GeForce2 have identical memory bandwidth. The GeForce2 GTS has nowhere near the memory bandwidth available to support their theoretical, and unachievable, peak 32-bit texel rate claim.

Gonna call the guy a liar?

The Voodoo5 has more than enough grunt to hold its own against the GeForce on ANY game at the moment.......and in games that don't support T&L (errr....most of them) I'm sure will even beat the GeForce. These games you're talking about that are even more hungry than Q3A are not even out yet. There are thousands of games out there that will run at over 100fps on a V5 in 32bit col, T-Buffer, FSAA, etc and look stunning! (on older CPU's too, I might add). You can't say the same of the GeForce because it has no T-buffer effects and it's FSAA stinks. You're talking about the GeForce being superior in about 1% (probably less) of the TOTAL games that will be on the shelves this year. By the time T&L takes off big time the Voodoo Rampage will be out - which is what 3dfx have really been working towards for the past 2 years.
Finally, I'm not saying that people have to upgrade all the time - I was just saying that for people buying/upgrading from now on they will have more than enough power to make a V5 worth while. Yes, the GeForce may be the better option on a slower CPU (I've never disputed that), but I was just saying that you can't really look at the market like that because of how fast the industry moves. If Nvidia were aiming their product at people with older kit than they're daft. But that's not the case of course.

[Nema Natas]

Right, i've tried to stay out of this arguement for as long as possible, but i can't be arsed any more.
I currently have an original tnt, so any graphics card will be an improvement.
I have been eagerly awaiting the voodoo 5's, because i thought that they would be the mutt's nutt's.
I didn't even know about the GeForce 2's until i read this page.
I have read ALOT of benchmark pages, and this is what i have found so far :
Most sites use Q3A etc as benchmark tests because it doesn't involve the cpu as much as it would using a demo like UT. This gives a fairer result.
All of the sites using q3a quote the geforce 2 as having slightly lower results than the v5 at low res's, but at higher re's the geforce 2 comes into it's own. This is running on a pIII 550 pentium and athlon, and a PIII 1gig pentium and equiv athlon.
At top resolutions on top end machines, the geforce 2 will give higher results in 32 bit than a v5 does in 16 bit. Fact.
On lower end machines, like most of us have, there isn't much to chose between the cards, although v5's have the edge it seems.
The most annoying thing is when people go on and on and fvcking on about how well the v5 runs in fsaa mode. This is only really useful in low res, as any decent resolutions that are available on 17" + monitors cancel out the need for fsaa.
A geforce 2 running at 1600 * doesnt need FSAA'ing. There is no point in having it at these res's. A geforce 2 at this res also runs faster than a v5 at 860* in FSAA mode, and the geforce 2 gives a better picture.

[Faking]

Lets keep this going then.
HardOcp are died in the wool 3dfx supporters so it's no surprise the result from there.

You go on about drivers being immature. They are for the geforce 2 as well. The binaries are entirely different for the geforce 2 and this shows through with the geforce actually being faster than the geforce 2 at 640x480. So, it seems there is a lot of room for improvement in the geforce 2. The geforce 2 is 25% faster and even the geforce 1 is faster.

FSAA is a niche thing. You'll hardly ever use it and certainly not in a FPS game - the sort of game where frame rates are king and fill rate and bandwidth are put under the most stress. It is for people with small monitors. They can't crank the resolution up. FSAA is a means of shrinking detail to fit a smaller screen. So if you can play at the higher resolution you get all the benefits of FSAA and more detail to boot. Detail is lost as you shrink the resolution down to 640x480. In other words its a gimmick. If you can run at higher res your picture will look better than running it at lower resolution with FSAA on. Hence if you have a small monitor then FSAA might actually be useful. For the rest of us we're better off playing at high res.

As to the 3dfx quotes - what do companies do when they have an inferior product. They start talking down other companies products to muddy the waters. I do agree however that it will be difficult to achieve the 1600mtexels today. However what you don't realise is that the geforce 2 can apply up to 7 graphical features in one pass. This includes bump mapping, lighting, two textures, etc all in one pass. It is this sort of processing that eats up the mtexels without hitting your bandwidth. Current software is only using 2 or 3 of these possible 7 and hence makes it more difficult to get anywhere near the Mtexel figure in todays games. But for future games?


And why would the voodoo5 beat the geforce in current games when it hasn't in any so far? I'm sure there would be quite a few sites gagging to show the voodoo5 is faster. None have come up so far and they've had the cards for 3 weeks now. It's a .25 micron vs .18 micron for the geforce. It uses SDRAM rather than DDRAM. It's paper specs are well below those of the Geforce 2. 3dfx's D3D has long been slower than the competitions. It all goes against it. T-buffer is proprietary and I can't see anyone supporting it, just as 3dfx are no longer developing glide. Geforce has TSR which is in the upcoming Direct x8.0 and looks amazing.

And you still haven't told me what I'm supposed to do about SOF - the only game I can't play online at decent fps at the moment.

And it looks like you agree that people will need T&L by xmas. So, are you expecting him to dump his v5 by xmas and buy a rampage? If so then I agree. If you buy a new CPU and graphics card every 6 months then why not give the voodoo5 a chance - however those sort of people will buy a v5 6000. I'm buying mine to last me at least a year, and I suspect most people expect at least a year out of their new graphics card.

(Not sure Nema got all his facts right though, in fact if you switch most of his discussion around then its probably right! Although his last 2 paragraphs are correct).

[Silent.B.Deadly]

Ace
in response to you question, i have a voodoo 3 3000. As i said i have a p3 500 with 128 ram and a 440bx mobo. So what do you think? v5 or new processor, and if you think new processor, how easy is it to do?

[log]

It seems to be the case that a voodoo5 is for now and current games, as the newones come out the voodoo 5 wont be able to use its FSAA. Ans as the new games come out the geforce will have all these new features used that the voodoo wont

The only game i would like to use th Geforce gts's FSAA is on counter strike. This is a 16 bit game, does any one have any idea of how well the geforce might handle this is 800 by 600 res??

[ACE Orchid]

Right, this is taking up far too much time, time that I could be spending actually playing the damn games! Anyway, quickly...

To say HardOCP are 3dfx supporters is rather predictable - and I'll just say that sites which show the GeForce in a good light MUST be Nvidia supporters, by the same token. Or are you trying to suggest the results were fixed? Because that would be really desperate. Face it, the Voodoo5 held its own in a game where the GeForce should have walked all over it.

The drivers comment is also predictable (I should have know better).

FSAA is NOT a gimmick. It IS on the GeForce because it's so badly done. But on the V5 you can play with 2x FSAA and see no significant drop in performance - yet you'll see MUCH better graphics, no matter what monitor you've got. I had a 15" up until quite recently, and to be honest it wasn't that different from my new 17" - not as different as you would make out anyway. Example: On a recent test of Motorhead using a V5 on a Celery 433MHz (not the best use of a V5!).

No FSAA
*Max Graphics
1024x768 32 bit
54fps

2x FSAA
*Max Graphics
1024x768 32 bit
53.3fps

Now you're going to tell me how the GeForce would do better than that at the next res up, and in this case you would be right because of the limitations of the Celery. But with a faster CPU, the V5 would be able match the GeForce at the next res up AND be able to use 2xFSAA with no significant fps hit. The guy who did the test concluded with:

"Clearly, FSAA is more than a buzzword. It's an enhancement to the graphics of D3D and OGL games that makes sense. From NFS3 to Half Life, every game I threw at it showed improved graphics and performance. Once you play with FSAA enabled you won't want to play another game without it."

I'm afraid I don't have a link to the site (I pasted this stuff from somewhere else). The FACT is FSAA is a good thing - and you would be saying the same thing if nvidia hadn't made such a pig's ear out of theirs.

SOF? I really don't give damn. If all your're interested in is FPS games then maybe the GeForce is the card for you. But there ARE other types of game you know - where performance AND quality are important. Agsin, you seem to be resting your whole argument on ONE game out of thousands. And you haven't even seen it running on a V5 yet - if the Q3A benchmarks are anything to go by you might be in for a shock.

Can we please end this now - I'm never going to convince you, and you'll never convince me. We'll just be destined to spend the rest of our lives in this forum chasing our own tails. I believe Voodoo5 gives you great performance with all of todays games, and will continue to do so for some time to come. I also believe it gives you great image quality and a useable FSAA option (which many will love). In other words I think it's a great all-rounder. I don't think the same of the GeForce.
That's the only way I can sum up what I feel, and that's where I'll leave it.

p.s. Silent B Deadly, the V5 will run great on your system. But I would wait a while until the prices drop.

[Mr Lee]

hey I love it when ppl can have informed discussions without going off flaming each other

/me looks well chuffed at ppl on graphics card forum and goes off to laugh at the CS forum :)

[ACE Orchid]

:p

[Gadget]

I really don't see there's much in it myself.

Looking at HotHardware's (http://www.hothardware.com) test of the production V5 5500 with release drivers, they get the following results on a P3 866:

Q3A 32bit colour, High Quality, max textures.

1024x768, no FSAA

V5 5500: 70fps, GTS: 74fps

They have plenty of other benchmarks at lower res, with and without FSAA and with lower quality settings, some of which favour the 3dfx card (mainly FSAA 'on' benchs) and some which favour the nVidia.

The GTS runs faster in all of the non-FSAA'd benchmarks, while 3dfx's 2x FSAA beats the GTS with FSAA on.

On the subject of drivers, I think you'll find that nvidia's driver set is more mature than 3dfx's. Having said that I doubt future releases will give any huge performance increases for either card.

At the end of the day, there is little to separate either card, some people will use FSAA, some won't, it's down to personal preferance.

Hard OCP, 3dfx biased? Marginally perhaps, but any slight favouritism pales into insignificance when compared to sites such as Tom's Hardware, which are incredibly anti-3dfx.

To sum it up:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana">quote:</font><HR>For now, NVidia has a leg up in the battle for Frame Rate Dominance but clearly 3dfx seems to have FSAA nailed down a little better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the decisive factor is going to be cost, Dabs are quoting the 5500 at £206.80 inc VAT, compared to the Creative GTS from Jungle (Dabs don't list it yet) @ £263.68 inc VAT. With the GeForce1 the Creative cards were the cheapest on the market, so I doubt you'll see other manufacturers releasing cheaper models in the near future.

Don't forget people, they're _graphics cards_, not women, getting all upset and emotional over which is best is deeply sad. :)

------------------
Email: gadget@chimpy.com
ICQ: 101220

[This message has been edited by Gadget (edited 14-05-2000).]

[log]

Gadget you are heading for a flamer

oh well........


any way i am going to get a geforce 2, the creative one comes out on monday, but the proce is rtoo hefty for me, i only would really like FSAA on halflife which is a 16-bit game which i imagine FSAA would do well on, does anyone else think that FSAA on Geforce 2 gts will be good enough to give good fram rates?

[336th WADE]

FSAA at 800x600 on CS and TFC is great. I have a GeForce DDR and with FSAA turned on I notice no slow down. The same applies to SoF, I turn FSAA on in that and things look great with no noticeable slow down.

[log]

that soind very good as Cs graphics ar geting dated and somehting like FSAA puts a bit more spice into the graphics, all the superior multexturing and **** like that the geforce 2 has can give me good quality on the newer gaes with out FSAA

[Nema Natas]

Yeah but Gadget, i'd rather go without women than 3d cards :)
Faking:if i can, i'll dig out the url where i saw the results that i said about the gts vs v5 on pIII's and Athlons.

[ACE Orchid]

New thread: 3D cards v Women.

My vote go's for 3D Cards. They cost less in the long run (even if you bought a new one every month). They don't answer you back. They don't moan when you go down the pub with your mates. You can talk about football without them yawning and looking at their watch. They don't have mood swings (actually, mine does :( ). You can look at other 3D cards without them giving you a dig in the ribs. And finally, if you don't like your 3D Card you can just chuck it out and get a new one the next day.

I would just like to point out that was all a joke, before I get some angry female giving me an ear-bashing :p I love the laydeez really ;)

[Faking]

Nema, check out the shugashack url I posted in my second post on this thread. That has g2 vs v5 on a range of CPU's.

Log, 16-bit FSAA runs quite fast on the geforce. In fact 16-bit at 640x480 with FSAA runs faster than a v5 without FSAA. You'll find that the likely only playable resolutions are up to 800x600 at 16-bit or 640x480 at 32-bit on the geforce 2 with FSAA. After that its too slow in my book.

As to cheaper Geforce's, I know that in Australia Asus are undercutting Creative by $100. I think Creative have changed their sell them cheap policy.

And for Silen B Deadly, check the shugashack benchmarks. You haven't got the horsepower for a v5 and would be better off with a geforce 1.

See, I dropped it ACE! But don't expect me to next time you start posting about image quality being better on v5 cause it plain ain't.

[ACE Orchid]

My god, he's still going on about it! FFS get over it m8 - it's history. Let it go. Your last little dig won't tempt me back into this silly argument, and to be honest you kinda shot yourself in the foot because it looked very desperate indeed. I was prepared to give it up and have a laugh about the whole thing, but you have such a massive chip on your shoulder that you can't do that. It's sad. It's just a lump of plastic with bits of silicon stuck on. Let go.

You win OK - I'm gonna buy a GeForce. I'm going to buy my mom one, my dad one, and even my pet hamster is going to have one installed in his cage. So you won. Well done. Big pat on the back. Thanks for converting me, etc, etc. Now go outside and get some fresh air.

THE END.

[BBW]

Fek! You guys got shares in these companies or what? Hail to the Ge-Force! No! Hail to the Voodoo5! No! Hail to the Rage Pro! Hail to the Voodoo Rush! Hail to the effect of marketing sucking you guys right in!

[ACE Orchid]

Guilty as charged. The Voodoo5 IS the best card though....

oh no - what have I done!? :p

[Faking]

ACE, I dropped it. I could have replied to your one page epic but I didn't. So who's looking silly now?

By the way if you don't want to drop it we can carry it on. How about posting links to the nicest images you can find on either card?

[ACE Orchid]

(sighs) Get a life m8. It's a lump of damn plastic and I can't believe I've already wasted so much of my time on this damn thread. It's a no-win situation because we'll never agree on anything. I could tell you the Voodoo5 cures cancer, makes the coffee and grants you three wishes, and you would STILL find fault with it. Just pointless.

Don't even reply to this message - just drop it now. Please!

[log]

SO can i have an answer please

at the moment i get the impreesion the voodoo is good for current gamed but will be dated quickly

the geforce is a better investment and allround better than V5 5500

ok?

[milo]

LOL, fellas, fellas, that was quite entertaining ;)
faking you need to get out more m8, it's summer time now, lots of nice ladies out there,(assuming you swing that way) ;).
Ahem, anyway a serious question, i play Q2, halflife and UT, and have a voodoo2 at hte moment, V5 looks good to me any offers?