who hates the geforce2 gts?

Yeah no hate here, just ignorance. I was thinking the GTS offered a great price to performance ratio, but it's been so many years...

I had a GeForce 2 GTS pro and it was awesome.

Geforce2 does not support sideband addressing.

The texture bench parts of 3dmark99 does not contribute to the score.

uhh, I didn't know that, I think it affected it in some or other way.. but I dunno if 3dmark will give you both cpu and 3dmark scores if you don't run the texture load test

I reffered to it myself as well-hated because many of the users here are 3dfx fans and well, this card was what caused the demise of 3dfx 🙁

also, doesn't support it? I made a report with rivatuner and it displays this:

$ffffffffff ----------------------------------------------------------------
$ffffffffff Northbridge information
$ffffffffff ----------------------------------------------------------------
$0400000000 Description : VIA KT266/333 series
$0400000001 Vendor ID : 1106 (VIA)
$0400000002 Device ID : 3099
$0400000003 AGP bus : revision 2.0
$0400000004 AGP status : enabled
$0400000005 AGP rate : 1x 2x 4x supported, 4x selected
$0400000006 AGP SBA : supported, enabled
$0400000007 AGP FW : supported, enabled
$ffffffffff ----------------------------------------------------------------
$ffffffffff Display adapter information
$ffffffffff ----------------------------------------------------------------
$0000000000 Description : NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS
$0000000001 Vendor ID : 10de (NVIDIA)
$0000000002 Device ID : 0150
$0000000003 Location : bus 1, device 0, function 0
$0000000004 Bus type : AGP revision 2.0
$0000000005 AGP status : enabled
$0000000006 AGP rate : 1x 2x 4x supported, 4x selected
$0000000007 AGP SBA : supported, enabled
$0000000008 AGP FW : supported, enabled

Greetings

The GeForce 2 GTS isn't what brought the demise of 3dfx. 3dfx pretty much brought it to themselves 😜

hah well, they killed themselves too 🤣

Also, if some of you guys are curious of how did I enable fastwrites, I used rivatuner and checked Sideband adressing- Force ON instead of determined by VGA BIOS

and yes, this is not just a cosmetic fix, it gave me a few more points on 3dmark99 but you can't do it if you have a via apollo 133 based board.. anyway not too much of a difference 😜

If some sku killed 3dfx then it was GeForce 2 MX. People might demean balance and certain features of GeForce 2 but it was still the best thing for quite some time.

subhuman@xgtx wrote:

also, doesn't support it? I made a report with rivatuner and it displays this:

Well, I read a bit into this and it seems that nvidia disables SBA by default in the graphics cards BIOS, specifically because it is known that SBA causes problems in combination with VIA chipsets.
So the Forceware driver reports that SBA is not supported.

But as you wrote it seems that SBA can be forced on with Rivatuner f.e. (I will try this myself later)

I have not found information about the bare hardware support of the chip itself for SBA. Someone has a table maybe?

Regardless of this, most of the sites state that enabling SBA shows only a insignificant performance increase but is often the reason for stability problems. So the general recommendation is to leave it disabled.

Some general notes about the Geforce2. Remarkable was that the performance increased considerably while the power consumption dropped in comparison to the Geforce256. Also TnL really helped to gain a performance step on low CPU systems.
Geforce2MX was/is the most successful series from Nvidia, though it is a different chip with DVC/TwinView.

btw: I think that Wikipedia says that GF2GTS / Pro / Ultra is Twinview capable is wrong, it is a GF2MX only feature.

yep! that's it. It's not that NV15 didn't support it but the fact it was very unstable with the VIA chipset mainboards of the era, so elsa and many other manufacturers decided to disable it at a BIOS level in order to stop more and more questions/complaints from users/reviewers

And well, I think that NV15 in general was what if not destroyed 3dfx, punched them in the face 😜

BTW I love this forum guys!, I finally found a place where you can have a normal discussion without attracting a wave of trolls seeking for a thread on which they can try to make their opinions be a fact. 🤣

subhuman@xgtx wrote:

uhh, I didn't know that, I think it affected it in some or other way.. but I dunno if 3dmark will give you both cpu and 3dmark scores if you don't run the texture load test

I reffered to it myself as well-hated because many of the users here are 3dfx fans and well, this card was what caused the demise of 3dfx 🙁

The biggest things that caused the demise of 3dfx were how they were constantly diverting resources away from their next generation product and their acquisition of STB. OEM's didn't want to buy from them anymore because the quality of the product from STB was not up to their standards and other video card makers weren't making 3dfx cards like they used to, either. 3dfx was pretty much the sole supplier of cards utilizing their chips after the STB acquisition. What the other video chipset makers were doing had almost nothing to do with 3dfx going down.

sliderider wrote:

subhuman@xgtx wrote:

uhh, I didn't know that, I think it affected it in some or other way.. but I dunno if 3dmark will give you both cpu and 3dmark scores if you don't run the texture load test

I reffered to it myself as well-hated because many of the users here are 3dfx fans and well, this card was what caused the demise of 3dfx 🙁

The biggest things that caused the demise of 3dfx were how they were constantly diverting resources away from their next generation product and their acquisition of STB. OEM's didn't want to buy from them anymore because the quality of the product from STB was not up to their standards and other video card makers weren't making 3dfx cards like they used to, either. 3dfx was pretty much the sole supplier of cards utilizing their chips after the STB acquisition. What the other video chipset makers were doing had almost nothing to do with 3dfx going down.

+1

sliderider wrote:

OEM's didn't want to buy from them anymore because the quality of the product from STB was not up to their standards...

Voodoo3 are immortal. I am not sure about Velocities but STB quality should not be an issue at all.

3dfx's acquisition of STB cost a lot of money for questionable gains. The story is the same with the Gigapixel acquisition.

Putas wrote:

sliderider wrote:

OEM's didn't want to buy from them anymore because the quality of the product from STB was not up to their standards...

Voodoo3 are immortal. I am not sure about Velocities but STB quality should not be an issue at all.

From the Voodoo3 section in Wiki's 3dfx entry

"Prior to the STB merger finalizing, some of 3dfx's OEMs warned the company that any product from Juarez will not be deemed fit to ship with their systems, however 3dfx management believed these problems could be addressed over time. Those customers generally moved to Nvidia solutions and no longer chose to ship 3dfx products."

So by buying STB, 3dfx basically gave most of their OEM business to nVidia on a silver platter, while at the same time alienating their chipset customers who didn't want to compete with 3dfx because 3dfx would always have a pricing advantage over them since they were the one who made the chips.

F2bnp wrote:

3dfx pretty much brought it to themselves 😜

Yeah all of that aggressive marketing got to them like blast processing did to SEGA. Don't forget about their 1999 TV spots, those were costly as well. There's a reason why video chipset companies rarely do those. Last time I saw one was ATI Radeon 9700 TV ads in 2002 on TechTV, but 3dfx ads reached more cable stations such as anything Turner owned. 😜

Putas wrote:

Voodoo3 are immortal..

except for the 3500TV variant

What was wrong with the 3500TV? It was a bit weird, but it should have been pretty quick. Expensive?

EDIT: My collection: http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showpost.ph … 92&postcount=79

never got 3dmark99 run on win2000 or xp.