T&L

Fool

How fast does the geforce do T&L compared to an equivalent CPU?
i heard it was around 700MHz

Coyote

A PIII is faster at T&L that a geforce.
the first hardware T&L like the one on the
geforce are at the early stages and not on
till the next ver will they start to be as
fast as a PIII with SSE, by which time CPU
will be faster so we will have to wait and see.
Coyote

Gerry

The fact of the matter is that using the t&l on the geforce leaves the cpu free to do other stuff so no matter how fast the cpu, a geforce will improve your fps. In 3dmark2000, using the geforce t&l is slower but in quake3 with the 5.13 drivers, there is a huge speed up using the geforce. I think quake3 is slightly more relevant than a pure benchmark

Coyote

I am not saying that a GeForce is not a great card, it is. What he asked was which was faster doing T&L, well a PIII playing games with T&L done by the PIII you will get faster FPS with the CPU doing it not the GeForce. why anyone whould use T&L is beond me as it's a waste of time as there is just one full game with T&L in it. and i could not tell the dif with it turned on and off, it did not look better too me.

Ensign

Is there any proof to this?
i mean has anyone done a test to show all that?

sutty

hi all
have to get in on this one, what gerry said is kind of right, with g-force t&l in 3d mark2000 i get a faster mark,i'll do a test in a min and put up the mark, there are new drivers out for the g-force (Nvidia det) there 5.14, just putting them on now. i'll do q3 tests in both win98 and 2k. but form what i'v seen of t&l on the g-force it does make an inprovement on games,(any game useing opengl will use it but only a little bit, its games that need directx7 that will benafit from it the most. if you have a g-force you sould d/l the evola demo form that 3dgames.com place, its better than the one you get with the creative g-force.

[This message has been edited by sutty (edited 15-04-2000).]

[This message has been edited by sutty (edited 15-04-2000).]

sutty

just to add, t&l on a cpu takes up something like 60% of the power, with the g-force it doesn't use the cpu for it

Kali

why anyone whould use T&L is beond me as it's a waste of time as there is just one full game with T&L in it. and i could not tell the dif with it turned on and off, it did not look better too me.

err yes. where do people get information like this?
T&L won't make anything look better it will make things that use particular graphics routines execute a hell of a lot faster than loading the cpu with them (which should have better things to do during a game)
and you dont have to code T&L for it to be used.

sutty

well heres the tests that I'v done:

these where done with drivers 5.13
this was useing d3d hardware t&l
3DMark Result: 5414
settings:
640x480 32bit
buffering: triple
z-buffering: 24-bit
vsync off
texture format 32bit

this was useing the Athlon

3DMark Result: 3844
CPU Speed: 244
settings:
640x480 16bit
buffering: Double
z-buffering: 16-bit
vsync off
texture format 16bit

Quake 3
5.13
fps in time demo 1 low detale 126fps

high detale 112fps


these where done with drivers 5.14
this was useing d3d hardware t&l
3DMark Result: 5244
settings:
640x480 32bit
buffering: triple
z-buffering: 24-bit
vsync off
texture format 32bit

this was useing the Athlon

3DMark Result: 3840
CPU Speed: 242
settings:
640x480 16bit
buffering: Double
z-buffering: 16-bit
vsync off
texture format 16bit

Quake 3
5.14
fps in time demo 1 low detale 121fps

high detale 111fps

low detale is 16 bit every thing down low on sliders not useing a config, also vortex lighting and fov 90 (to get a proper test done in q3 you have to use fov 90)

high is every thing 32bit and every thing turned up on the sliders, and the other lighting, fov 90

my system:

Athlon 55@700
Creative G-force DDr (driver's 5.13 & 5.14)
128 megs of pc 100 sdram
sblive (driver's liveware 3)

ps...when i said "but form what i'v seen of t&l on the g-force it does make an inprovement on games" i ment in speed, the detale is done on the 2 tnt2 engens

_CreeD_

Just backing up sutty's numbers. I don't have the exact ones here but mine were pretty similar (5xxx vs 3xxx) - using the default Benchmark though (1024x768@16bit) (Near identical system with the Geforce running at 145 core and the 5.13 drivers, AGP1x, Sideband disabled, AMD AGP driver 4.61).

It's not a huge jump I admit. I bought it for the fillrate when I heard the DDR's overclcoked so well. At 580 Mpix (From 4xthe core speed above), it's pretty close to a Voodoo5500 with a 'free' T&L option.



[This message has been edited by _CreeD_ (edited 16-04-2000).]

Gerry

I don't have a geforce yet, but I am getting one and a p3 600 coppermine which has been tested at 850 so I will post my results when have that up and running. I only settled on the geforce when those 5.08 drivers came out which actually took advantage of the gpu. Before that it just seemed to be a faster tnt2 which had lower results at low res than a 3dfx

Koopa

yes but any p3 that might be able to do t&l faster than a geforce costs at least twice as much as a geforce right now, and you will still need a graphics card(eg. geforce) that can handle that sort of throughput

_CreeD_

Eh....The previous drivers took advantage of everything bar S3TXC. The new ones are previews of drivers for the next gen. Nvidia products and just do a better job than the old ones.