How fast is your computer?

[Piptol]

I didnt get quite as nice results with my geforce 2 in my 400mhz. Halflife software accelrated on the old card runs the same speed as halflife harware accelreation(with the added bonus my geforce likes too lag).

But opengl is hundreds faster than it was before.

Hmm, I'd heard the MX cards were pretty duff, I had no idea they were that bad. I guess you had the 'ol pci bottleneck in there too :normal:

[wizardlife]

Hmm, I'd heard the MX cards were pretty duff, I had no idea they were that bad. I guess you had the 'ol pci bottleneck in there too :normal:

The biggest difficulty with nVidia cards is the complete and total lack of naming convention.

Everytime they come up with a new 'generation', they re-package all the old cards under the new name. (at least that's the perception -- in fact they just clock them differently I think, and call the cruddy ones the 'bargain' series)

The GF4 MX440 is slower than some GF2s... But the GF4 Ti4600 is faster than anything else on the market except the newest Radeon cards (9700, 9000 line) :-?

[Hexadecimal Disaster]

It's not just that, Wiz. What you need to know is that -as many other hardware companies- nVidia follows a convention for naming things.

The MX series uses the "cheap edition" chipsets, contrasting with the TI series, the self-called "high performance series". It's like comparing two CPUs: the PII and the Celeron; both are "Pentium" processors, but surprisingly the PII-350 worked considerably faster than the Celeron-500. (the reason about why I chose that comparision is because looong time ago a client of mine was amazed to see my PII running faster than his brand new machine at that time; he mistakenly considered the mHz count as a sign of speed)

[na_th_an]

he mistakenly considered the mHz count as a sign of speed)

Very common error... and the main reason Mac-lovers say about Macs being better. Errare, humanum est.

[Agamemnus]

Again,

I thought Celerons were advertised by Intel as cheap processors for "word processing". Of course, if they're cheaper than the rest, they're slower too!

[wizardlife]

It's not just that, Wiz. What you need to know is that -as many other hardware companies- nVidia follows a convention for naming things.

The MX series uses the "cheap edition" chipsets, contrasting with the TI series, the self-called "high performance series".

They don't follow that one either. The second highest performance GF2 is the MX400. How come the 'bargain' GF2MX400 beats some of the GF4 MX line?

[wizardlife]

I thought Celerons were advertised by Intel as cheap processors for "word processing". Of course, if they're cheaper than the rest, they're slower too!

The deficiency has to do with processor cache size, doesn't it?

And MHz can be very misleading... Mac processors perform way better than P4s clocked at the same speed. AMD actually names their chips with the 'Intel speed'. The XP 1800+ actually runs at 1.53 GHz, I believe, but it is intended to compete with the 1.8 from Intel.

[Johpie]

My Specs:

* Workstation

- Duron 1300
- 384 MB PC133
- GeForce 4 MX440 64 MB DDR
- MSI Mobo
- 120 GB Maxtor

* MP3 PC

- P166mmx
- 64 MB EDO
- 13.2 Seagate

Both running Win2k Proff

[DrV]

Current PC: (homebuilt)

AMD Athlon XP 1700+
512 MB DDR
nVidia GeForce 4 MX440 w/128megs video ram
80GB HDD(winxp) and 15GB HDD(linux)

Previous PC: (Dell)
P4 667 Mhz
64MB RAM, added 128megs later.
Intel 810e integrated gfx

*OLD* PC: (IBM)
486DX 100mhz
Win3.1 and OS/2 dual boot
700mb HDD
1Meg video ram (integrated gfx)

[Agamemnus]

Ok, why can't they just say:

Here is the ops/second for
logic operation A
logic operation B
logic operation C
here is the average based on an industry standard of how many times each operation is used: