ATI Fury MAXX, New King?

but some people pay $4000 for a mac to play in 15bit color
hehe hehe suck it sharky

*cough* processor scaling please *cough*
come on sharky.. your getting paid in hardware... tell use those benchmarks you probably shouldnt show... 16bit and 640x480 and run it on a \"REAL\" system.. not some fantasy system that only YOU or OTHER hardware reviewers get.. show us a p2 400 (what most people have by now) all the way up to a p3 800 (what you have) all res 16and32bit on quake3 and decent and toss in some other benchmarks..
big deal if the ati card has 64meg of ram.. the geforce can handle theoretically 128meg lets see a benchmark on a 64meg geforce sdr and ddr
the maxx is just some fast shit made up by ati...
46.2 fps isnt all that bad w/o tweaks..
*smacks voodoo3 2000 and hopes to trade-in for a v3 3k pci later this year*

I think ATI\'s in the same position that nVidia was back in the latter days of the Riva 128 (and its ZX spawn), or maybe in the earliest Riva TNT days; an OpenGL driver which is by and large functional (I should know, I have a Rage Fury), but still quite a bit of work to go before it can be considered \"solid.\"

ATI\'s problem is that all this work is being done about a year or more too late. nVidia\'s OpenGL drivers are practically so tight that you could bounce a penny off them by now, while ATI looks antiquated by comparison.

Their next non-Rage-128 architecture to be something to see. It will undoubtedly come at least several months from now - giving time for better drivers - but, I suspect, use different rendering techniques in the first place. Whether it\'s faster or not, I wouldn\'t know (I obviously couldn\'t), but it should be more worthy of note.

If I were only an opinion. Sigh. I wish I could be wrong too.

Damn, that bastards faster than Walt Flannagan\'s dog!

Also...

ATI.
Rage Pro.

Nuff said.

Did you read that GamersDepot article? The ATI totally spanked the GeForce using 32-bits. I don\'t even want to hear about 16-bits on a new card!

And the list price is $249... definitely cheaper than that GeForceDDR you pointed out.

I\'m still waiting for the V4 which will humiliate both of these cards...

#47, look at the ETA for that GeForceDDR...Dec. 10th estimated.
By then you can get the cheaper and faster 64MB ATI.

I think Nvidia is in trouble.

Hey, #17 where did you get your numbers from?

#45
http://queen.pricewatch.com/search/search.idq?ne=16259&l=16213&qc=%22GEFORCE%22*&CiCodePage=Windows-1252&cr=geforce
$299 preorder

#43, before you flame me, just realize I am playing devils advocate. I am pretty much decided on getting a good old sdr geforce, despite what I say about it. About the only other card that interests me in the Voodoo4/Napalm, but I am not going to wait until March for it. By then, there will be something better coming, so why not wait some more...

Just hanging on until Nov. 15 to see what comdex has in store. If nothing suprises me, geforce here I come.

#43, the ddr geforce is not significantly faster than the ati maxx on a high end system. In fact, when you compare the benchmarks, in 32bit the maxx is still faster. Second, I heard about the Hercules ddr geforce for $299 and tried to pre-order one, and the cheapest it can be found for is $320, about $70 more for a card that isnt quite as fast in 32bit and has crappy dvd support. And ati is really not bad at all on driver releases.

#34 I think he was talking about v4 =P
Shouldn\'t have been since it seems it may be pretty far off

I\'ve got a P2-450 and a V3 2000. With the WickedGL drivers, I get about 51 fps in timdemo1. Thats good enoug for me right now... that is, until I get my grad present computer... I\'m thinking about an Athlon 700 (or even 900 or so by this May) and a V4... Mmmm, V4...

Say, is anyone actually beliving in the Glaze3d? I\'d like to, but something is telling me it won\'t be as good as they say or the vapor says... It sure would be nice though...

Hey, Im still on a P2 233 with SLI voodoo2 24 megs VRAM. In Q3 I have all detail turned down to the lowest it can go and get 25 fps in the top YA room on average on q3tourney. My system\'s pathetic yet I still kick butt. Anyone wanna help a Quaker in need? 8)

Sure, the ATI card looks great, but remember, this review is on a site that calls a 50fps timedemo result \"the sweet spot\" and \"smoooooth\"
Bullshit.. 100fps is smooth.. 50fps is chunky.
I just got my GeForce in.. Creative Labs model, SDRAM, etc.. In Quake3, 1024x768, 16bit, trilinear, highest texture quality, dynamic lighting and wall-marks off, I get 101fps on my P3-558.
Show me a card that will NOT drop below 60fps in a deathmatch at 32bit, 800x600 or higher, and I\'ll be ordering it within 15 minutes.
With the same config, but 800x600x32bit on my machine, I get 90fps or so in demo1. Unfortunately, the framerate hits 50 at LAN parties.. Forget it..

Just for kicks, I tested at 1600x1200 in Quake1... Heh.. 72fps in demo1, baby! I played through Episode 2, and it was totally smooth the entire way.. I get the same Quake2 crusher score at 1600x1200 now as I did in 640x480 when I first got my Voodoo2. Mad.

No kidding Nvidia fans... I even saw that post about... oh let\'s see how the MAXX does on Nvidia\'s tree demo..... LOL bahahaa.... well, I\'m glad you will be playing the tree demo all day, while I play Quake3. :)

As for the mouse latency.. that is TOTAL BULLSHIT. Each fury chip only requires to calculate each alternate frame, meaning that one unit of input will go into one fury, and the second unit of input will be dealt with by the second fury. There IS NO FREAKING LATENCY. Every \"other\" input I provide NO LONGER has to be dealt with by the other fury... all your balony about mouse latency... LOL it\'s just hilarious how desperate some of you people are.

Why don\'t you buy a piece of hardware because it\'s good for once, and not because it\'s made by a company you have been brainwashed to love.