[slaterat]

Has anyone tried an xabre based video card out? I'm interested in it as an alternative to a Geforce mx card. The game I spend most of my time playing, WW IIO , is upgrading to direct x 8.1 and implementing support for hardware T&L. Its time to move up from my old but solid voodoo 4.
ATI cards still seem to have issues with this game. I've read some pretty fair reviews of xabre based cards and for a budget card it seems like a good choice.


Slaterat

[Chalnoth]

If you're worried about compatibility, the Xabre is almost certainly not for you. Just because Trident is a smaller company, they are bound to have far more driver issues than ATI or nVidia.

Personally, I'd suggest getting some nVidia graphics card.

Just don't expect any real-world improvements from WWIIO moving to T&L. Unless they're adding all-new graphics to go along with it, it's not going to help much, if at all.

[multigl2]

Originally Posted by Chalnoth

Personally, I'd suggest getting some nVidia graphics card.

Wow, thats so unlike you (take that as a harmless joke okay )

And this is so unlike me:

try to find either a Radeon8500 128MB DDR if you can, or a good Geforce4 Ti4200. I would bet a great deal of money that neither would dissapoint.

[Typedef Enum]

Did anybody see the Serious Sam 2 performance results? Holy crap, the Xabre nearly doubled the performance of the Ti4200!

As to the topic @ hand...As was mentioned, your biggest problem is going this route is the state of the drivers. They have evidentally fixed a lot of the issues that the earlier previews had...but nonetheless, I think you would be better served elsewhere.

Of course, if your budget is like $70 or so, then go for it...But you might be better served in picking up a 4200 or 8500.

If you're going to pickup a previous generation, you should think about buying something used. With the 9700's out now, the prices are dropping like flies...especially for those folks that are dumping their cash towards the 9700's, and in the future, the NV30.

[multigl2]

Originally Posted by Typedef Enum

Did anybody see the Serious Sam 2 performance results? Holy crap, the Xabre nearly doubled the performance of the Ti4200!

I haven't read a single xabre review so I don't know if thats true or just sarcasm... but if it is true, you should note the Xabre's poor texture filtering capabilities and almost non existant FSAA options. Also, the ti4200 most likely kills it in FSAA and anisotropic performance.

[breez]

Originally Posted by Chalnoth

If you're worried about compatibility, the Xabre is almost certainly not for you. Just because Trident is a smaller company, they are bound to have far more driver issues than ATI or nVidia.

Hmm, it is Sis Xabre not Trident Xabre.

[Randell]

either way if its a budget card around the $70 mark, then you might just find a Gf3Ti200 deal for $70-$100.

If not then the current budget card of choice the ATI9000/9000Pro unless it really does have a killer problem with WWIIO.

[Pete]

I'd avoid the Xabre, unless you like blurry textures. I'd wait for ATi to fix their problems (check Rage3D's BBS) and get an $85 64MB 9000 Pro or $92 8500, or try to get a 64MB GF3Ti200 for ~$90 (better than a GF4MX in terms of speed, but maybe not interms of 2D quality).

128MB versions bench far better in certain (texture-heavy) games, but you're looking at $130+.

[Richthofen]

i woud not consider a XABRE card.

First of all there is the driver issue.
If you are looking for compatibility get a nvidia card.
Try to get a good GF4 Ti4200 or GF3Ti200 Deal.

The speed SIS gained with the XABRE is because they lowered Image Quality by default.
The texture filtering suxx a lot. There were some nice reviews on the internet where they increased the image quality of the XABRE at a level competetive to ATI and Nvidia. At this level the card was very damn slow.
A GF3Ti200 is a far better choice than a XABRE at the same price tag.

Looking forward i would consider a cheap GF4Ti4200 if i were you.

[Dio]

R9000's can be very cheap. In the UK, Scan had a Gigabyte R9000 64M for £50+vat on their specials yesterday.

[Chalnoth]

Oh, sorry, yeah, it is SiS that makes the Xabre, not Trident...well, no matter, they're both small companies...

As for the Radeon 9000, its performance is lower even than the Radeon 8500, so only get one if it's really cheap.

The best performance for the same market is found in the GeForce4 Ti 4200 (Just don't get the Gainward...it's been known to have stability issues).

[Randell]

how cheap is a Gf4Ti4200 (good make) in the US then from a reputable site?

In the UK there is normally ~£50-£70 ($80-$95) between the Radeon 9000Pro and the 4200 so it's a different market segment, and about £20-£30 on the 8500LE. Bearing in mind the 9000 is only a little bit slower than the 8500 and outperforms/outfeatures the Gf4MX range at the same price point, it is the best budget card (sub £100) from a UK point of view.

What's current pricing in the US then on the main cards?

[Chalnoth]

Ti 4200: $125-$130 for the cheaper models.
Radeon 9000: $75-$80 for the cheaper models.
Radeon 8500 128MB: $105-$110 ditto.

So, yes, the Ti 4200 could be considered to be in a different market due to the higher cost.

The cheapest DX8 card from nVidia right now is:

GeForce3 Ti 200: $80-$90

Speaking of which, it would be kind of interesting to see the performance delta between the Ti 200 and the Radeon 9000. After all, the Radeon 9000 is a bit slower than the 8500, but so is the Ti 200...

[Randell]

I had often thought that, and hadn't found a review that included both until until now;

http://www.hardwareluxx.de/cgi-bin/u...2&t=000017

in german but the charts speak for themselves.

Bearing in mind;

Videoshaders
Dual output
faster AF
equivalent speed 2xAA (the only usable setting on both cards IMO)

I would say the 9000Pro is a better bet than the Gf3Ti200 for a lot a of people.

[-THaVinNY-]

i suggest waiting for the Trident XP4 T3 it'll be a 128mb card which will cost around 90/100 and Tridents goal is to make it perform like a Ti4200.

this maybe sound like a strange story, but I hope that they can pull it off. they have a very interresting design and it would be very nice to see them back at the GFX game.

[BRiT]

If you need to upgrade, and do it on the cheap, if you live in the US, pick up an ATI 8500 64M card or 9000Pro 64M card. Both are listed for around $90 shipped.

The NVidia TI-4200 is still listing for around $130 shipped. That's quite a hefty chunk of change.

You probably want to head over to Rage3D.com and check the boards to see if others are having issues with WW-II-O or if they have it solved.

I've had the 8500 64M for ~ 10 months now and have been extremely pleased with it. But then again, I haven't played WW-II-O at all. In all the games I play, the 6159-betas are working great. I had my concerns about ATI's drivers before, but I picked up the card nontheless. I haven't had any issues for a long time. When I have come across an issue, an update to te latest available beta-drivers had it fixed. At one point, I hadn't updated drivers in well over 4 months. Something that I haven't had the experience or pleasure of doing since the old days when 3dfx was the defacto developer card.


--|BRiT|

[Chalnoth]

Originally Posted by Randell

Videoshaders
Dual output
faster AF
equivalent speed 2xAA (the only usable setting on both cards IMO)

I would say the 9000Pro is a better bet than the Gf3Ti200 for a lot a of people.

My comment on the two:

1. The GF3 Ti 200 has higher-quality AF (applies AF to all surfaces...particularly important for flight sims).
2. The 2x AA looked like higher speed to me on the GF3 (although it would be nice to have more games benched with AA...)
3. The primary benefit of the AA and AF of the GeForce3/4 series is that they are complimentary: they reduce the performance hit of one another.
4. The AA of the Radeon 8500 series has been problematic for some time.

[Joe DeFuria]

First, the obligatory "balancing" statements to Chalnoths cheerleading:

1) The Radeon has higher performance anisotropic filtering. Very important for all games.
2) The Radeon has higher quality AA. (Would be nice to have seen some screenshots).
3) The primary issue with GeForce3 AA and AF, is that the "first one" you enable incurs a large performance hit...whether it's AA or AF.
4) The AA on the Radeon is no more problematic than any other AA.

Now for my personal reccommendation:

Both the Ti-200 and the Radeon 9000 have pros and cons, and are about a wash over a wide variety of games. You can't go wrong with either one for the price.

If your primary concern is how the card plays some new version of WW IIO, then it would make the most sense to wait until the new version is out, and then see how each card plays it. As long as your current card is "OK", then you would only be doing yourself a disservice by buying a card now, and then finding out it's "the wrong one" once the new version comes out.

[Randell]

Originally Posted by Chalnoth

2. The 2x AA looked like higher speed to me on the GF3 (although it would be nice to have more games benched with AA...)

4. The AA of the Radeon 8500 series has been problematic for some time.

in terms of AA speed the Gf3Ti200 took a 45% hit in QIIIA & 42% hit in 3dmark, the 9000Pro took 51% and 41%, which is near enough not to be a major difference which is why I called it evens. Yes more benches would be nice with AA. But I beat I can say the 9000Pro would have won the JKII and RtCW ones and the GfTi200 the UT2003 ones

In terms of AA problematically do you mean limited vertically edge AA in 2x mode? In that case what about nVidia AA not working in a render to texture situation?

I am not going to mention AF, we have done that too many times

All cards/drivers have their quirks, but the 9000Pro just has more features than the Gf3Ti200 and can also offer;

i) better quality DVD playback and software (ATI's own)
ii) no black lines bordering the screen on TV-out

From what I've read the video shader is really impressive in action and a valued feature by those guys using this board who do more than just game.

[Chalnoth]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

4) The AA on the Radeon is no more problematic than any other AA.

Well, then, has the issue with edge AA not being performed at certain angles (I believe it was vertical) been resolved, then? When fog is enabled?

If your primary concern is how the card plays some new version of WW IIO, then it would make the most sense to wait until the new version is out, and then see how each card plays it. As long as your current card is "OK", then you would only be doing yourself a disservice by buying a card now, and then finding out it's "the wrong one" once the new version comes out.

I'd have to say that's a very good statement, except for two things: It may be hard to judge afterwards which cards are better...hopefully there are some fairly active message boards for the game. The second thing is that nVidia's video cards, based largely on the simple fact that they have the largest market share (besides their better driver reputation), are more likely to just plain work.

In terms of AA problematically do you mean limited vertically edge AA in 2x mode? In that case what about nVidia AA not working in a render to texture situation?

What is the problem with not enabling AA when render to texture is enabled?

in terms of AA speed the Gf3Ti200 took a 45% hit in QIIIA & 42% hit in 3dmark, the 9000Pro took 51% and 41%, which is near enough not to be a major difference which is why I called it evens.

3DMark2k1 is not a game, and the benchmarks are almost completely useless as far as I'm concerned. This is something I've been saying since the days of 3DMark2000: 3DMark scores just do not correspond to real-world benchmarks in any way, shape, or form.

[Randell]

Originally Posted by Chalnoth

What is the problem with not enabling AA when render to texture is enabled?

this one

http://users.otenet.gr/~ailuros/RtT.jpg

taken from Ail's Gf4Ti4400

[Chalnoth]

I don't think you understood me. I meant, why is that a problem?

If you ask me, the driver certainly should not force AA in alternative rendering scenarios. If the program wants to have higher-resolution render to texture, it should set higher-resolution render to texture. If the program wants multisampling AA in render to texture, it should set multisampling AA in render to texture.

I don't see this as a problem in any way, as the lack of AA in that render to texture scenario could easily have been fixed if the program had used higher-resolution rendering.

[Randell]

hmm I not sure of the cause, but Ail assures us it occurs in games quite a bit.

[Chalnoth]

The cause is simple:

If the texture rendered to, when it is displayed on the screen, is magnified, then it will show the issues you see there. The best solution is just to switch to a higher-resolution texture, whereby the texture filtering, MIP mapping, and anisotropic filtering can solve the problem quite a bit better than a little AA when rendering the texture.

One nagging problem that can occur, however, is when the texture is rendered to, and then displayed without any filtering. This, however, I would consider a gross mistake on the part of the game developer.

[Randell]

yep I see what you mean, having run it on my 8500 now.