COMBATSIM.COM ARCHIVE FORUM : CL GeForce256 Blaster Card has been released

Content:

Home Page
Articles and News

Files / Links:

Downloads
Web Links

Interact:

Forums
Forums (Archive)

Search Site

2005 to Today
1997-2005 Search

News Feeds

This is our archive forum. It contains posts from 1999 to 2003. If you prefer, you may participate in our current COMBATSIM.COM Forum

my profile | register | search | faq | forum home

»	COMBATSIM.COM ARCHIVE FORUM » Hardware / OS Discussions » Sound, Video, & Monitors » CL GeForce256 Blaster Card has been released

Author

Topic: CL GeForce256 Blaster Card has been released

VonGunn
Member
Member # 313

posted 10-04-1999 01:49 PM

Just posted today on the CL pressroom section of the CL homepage est price is 250 USD. Though you'd like to know

JG52_VonGunn

Posts: 377 | From: Nebraska | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

CFrancisco
Member
Member # 33

posted 10-05-1999 09:49 AM

NOWAY!!!! Gotta have gota have the GeForce chip right right!!!.. oooooooo dddrrrroooollll

Posts: 4364 | From: NYC, NY | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

Spectre
Member
Member # 41

posted 10-05-1999 10:43 AM

Resist the urge

until we see those benchmarks...

From personal experience: stay the hell away from C Labs vid cards...they're a no go. Sorry for the bias...

Posts: 900 | From: Colorado | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

VonGunn
Member
Member # 313

posted 10-05-1999 12:56 PM

Sorry Spectre

gotta go mit Herr Cfran on this one, Im currently running a CL 3d Blaster Banshee and have had no problems with it at all, whats wrong mit them und vhy don't du like them??

VonGunn

Posts: 377 | From: Nebraska | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

CFrancisco
Member
Member # 33

posted 10-05-1999 02:04 PM

ditto ive got a CL TNT card 3D something or other i forgot the name anyway its been working fine since day 1 when i built my PC no probs no hickups nothing.. what prob did you encounter? ...

Posts: 4364 | From: NYC, NY | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

Spectre
Member
Member # 41

posted 10-05-1999 02:27 PM

Mainly driver issues. The biased really came over when I was assisting a friend of mine set up his computer. He just so happened to have a CLabs TNT2 card and well...it wasn't what we expected.

Anyway...I could be wrong

Posts: 900 | From: Colorado | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

CFrancisco
Member
Member # 33

posted 10-05-1999 02:32 PM

no no not wrong personal preference

i like CL because it gives excellent performance for less cost over DiamondMM and the others.. and recently thier drivers are getting updated much faster than they used to .. more fun for less frills and with the wife watching every buck that leaves the old pocket its a definite that i would go with CL .. just as a comparison a DM TNT2 ULTRA costs me $200.00 US while a CL TNT ULTRA for $130 US a big price difference with similar performance...

Posts: 4364 | From: NYC, NY | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

Hunedog
Member
Member # 94

posted 10-05-1999 02:38 PM

Here's your review guys, Go to www.hardware-.com/reviews/clgeforce/

Posts: 516 | From: Vancouver BC Canada | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

Hunedog
Member
Member # 94

posted 10-05-1999 02:41 PM

Sorry,Doh! Try www.hardware-one.com/reviews/clgeforce

Posts: 516 | From: Vancouver BC Canada | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

CFrancisco
Member
Member # 33

posted 10-05-1999 03:16 PM

Thanks Hune!!

read the review looks like im gonnag give it some time to see what happens when Diamond or the other guys come out with thiers.. thats when CL usually drops teh BOMB on the market and comes out with thier UBER board... LOL as history showed us a couple of times

Posts: 4364 | From: NYC, NY | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

John Reynolds
Member
Member # 78

posted 10-05-1999 05:22 PM

My personal advice: wait on the benchmarks. The GF256 has a virtually identical memory interface as a TnT2, which was shown to be severely bandwidth limited (not fill rate, but memory bandwidth) in 32-bit rendering. A GF256 with regular SDRAM is going to be a crippled product, IMHO, because it simply won't be able to achieve its potential, which is quite strong.

So be patient, wait on the benchmarks, see the difference DDR memory will make, and then decide which board you want.

Posts: 33 | From: Dayton, Ohio | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

Azrael
Member
Member # 531

posted 10-07-1999 07:01 AM

The hi-end CL card is supposedly offering an additional 32 meg of DDR ram.. this could make a HUGE difference on performance.. and thats one thing we all need anyway.. a faster RAM architecture all the way across the board.. I am ready to be done w/ SDRAM personally.. bring us more power please

Posts: 3 | From: Jax,Fl,USA | Registered: Oct 1999 | IP: Logged

Spectre
Member
Member # 41

posted 10-07-1999 09:03 AM

I definitely agree with John: wait for the benchamrks and wait for ALL the vid card manufacturers to release their boards.

I just posted a new forum talking about the Aurora by ATi...looks like their card will be the only one able to compete head to head with geForce based cards.

www.sharkyextreme.com is the site for the latest information on this card.

Like I have always said: we have to wait and see what will be offered and how the compare to each other. Granted, the geForce looks like the board to beat BUT the first boards will all come out with 32 Mb RAM on them and that's really not the way to go. ATi on the other hand is releasing their boards with 64Mb RAM from the gitgo...

3Dfx really screwed the pooch by delaying their Napalm...they are going to lose some serious market share because of this delay.

I seriously doubt that the new Savage chipset by S3 will prove anything...people have lost faith in S3 products.

Xmas sure looks interesting though

------------------
Check out my webiste Fighter Combat.

Posts: 900 | From: Colorado | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

VonGunn
Member
Member # 313

posted 10-07-1999 11:12 AM

Oh yeah, I agree 100% with you guys, wait for reviews, see whats up with everything before running out to possibly waist 200 bucks.

Didn't I read in the 256 review posted above that CL in the manual says Full Screen Anti-aliasing, isnt that supposed to be 3DFX's big thing along with the t- buffer?. Anyway..3dfx better have something outstanding in Napalm that works with D3D or their gonna up crick s**t with out a canoe. Id like a Athlon 650 mit either a Napalm or Geforce based vid card, at least thats the way it looks to me right now.

VonGunn

Posts: 377 | From: Nebraska | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

bofors
Member
Member # 543

posted 10-08-1999 09:39 AM

I too was surprised to hear about anti-aliasing features in the GeForce 256, other articles that I have read on the subject don't mention any. Really I intended to wait for the S3-chip just to get anti-aliasing, but now I'm not so sure.

Could it be that anti-aliasing isn't a clear-cut concept, but have different levels of implementation? Is there a difference between the 3dfx idea of anti-aliasing and anti-aliasing from S3 or Nvidia?

Posts: 8 | From: | Registered: Oct 1999 | IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)

Hop To:

Home of the VMF-124 Death's Head Virtual Marine Squadron

Home of the VMF-124 Death's Head Squad

Classic Reviews: