I have one. It doesn't work, gets super hot super fast. Artifacts and won't run any benchmarks without crashing.
I've kept it around as a curiosity only.
havli wrote:I think for NV1x architecture the major bottleneck is the memory bandwidth. Fillrate is not that important. Therefore GF 256 DDR will be always faster than any GF2 MX... even OC models like 200/200 MHz Asus V7100/pro. GF4 MX440 is nice, but only 128-bit models... 64-bit is more or less the same like GF2 MX or GF 256 SDR.
Skanque wrote:Dell 9830U nVidia 180-P0003-0100-D02 GeForce 256 32MB AGP VGA Video Card RARE
Try this description on eBay, I already have two Geforce 256, so think someone ells will be more happy with it.
GF 256 and GF2 didn't have any Z-buffer optimisations unlike GF3 and newer.
ph4nt0m wrote:havli wrote:I think for NV1x architecture the major bottleneck is the memory bandwidth. Fillrate is not that important. Therefore GF 256 DDR will be always faster than any GF2 MX... even OC models like 200/200 MHz Asus V7100/pro. GF4 MX440 is nice, but only 128-bit models... 64-bit is more or less the same like GF2 MX or GF 256 SDR.
Not exactly. GF 256 and GF2 didn't have any Z-buffer optimisations unlike GF3 and newer. Most notably hidden surface removal and Z-buffer compression. They wasted a lot memory bandwidth and fill rate on overdraw, i.e. rendering objects hidden behind other objects visible to the viewer. This is the area where early Radeons were so much better. In addition, memory controllers of GF 256 and GF2 weren't multichannel, i.e. one 128-bit vs. four 32-bit channels. It was of a lower importance since they didn't support pixel shaders, but anyway.
silikone wrote:ph4nt0m wrote:havli wrote:I think for NV1x architecture the major bottleneck is the memory bandwidth. Fillrate is not that important. Therefore GF 256 DDR will be always faster than any GF2 MX... even OC models like 200/200 MHz Asus V7100/pro. GF4 MX440 is nice, but only 128-bit models... 64-bit is more or less the same like GF2 MX or GF 256 SDR.
Not exactly. GF 256 and GF2 didn't have any Z-buffer optimisations unlike GF3 and newer. Most notably hidden surface removal and Z-buffer compression. They wasted a lot memory bandwidth and fill rate on overdraw, i.e. rendering objects hidden behind other objects visible to the viewer. This is the area where early Radeons were so much better. In addition, memory controllers of GF 256 and GF2 weren't multichannel, i.e. one 128-bit vs. four 32-bit channels. It was of a lower importance since they didn't support pixel shaders, but anyway.
Doesn't it still save a write operation upon a failed depth test?
rasz_pl wrote:SPBHM wrote:there is a seller with 3x Elsa Gloria II Pro for $50 each on ebay"RETURNS: Returns are not accepted. All sales are final. Buyer pays for returning the item if allowed by Ebay as a result of a dispute. All shipping charges are not refundable.
DISPUTES: This item is sold As-IS with all faults and imperfections if any. It is non-returnable. We make every effort to make sure the description is as accurate as possible. Any errors or omissions in the listing shall not be grounds for returning the item. It is sold As-IS and Non-Returnable. If Ebay permits the buyer to return the item to the seller as a result of a dispute, the buyer agrees and shall pay a 25% restocking fee. In addition, the buyer agrees and shall pay the return shipping charges including insurance. Buyer also agrees that the all shipping charges are not refundable."
Conditions of this listing are against Ebay rules.= broken cards. All it takes is a clothes iron and bam, sealed "new" card."sealed static bag, All Sales are final. There are no warranties. Sold AS-IS "
I agree on MX400, same performance at a fraction of the price. 256 is a collectors item, was originally sold during a very narrow window. Nvidia was shitting out new generations of products every couple of months during 3dfx fight!
Riva 128 (April 1997) to TNT (June 15, 1998) took 14 months, TNT2 (March 15, 1999) 8 month, GF256 (October 11, 1999) 7 months, GF2 (April 26, 2000) 6 months, | 3dfx dies here |, GF3 (February 27, 2001) 9 months, GF4 (February 6, 2002) 12 months, FX (March 2003) 13 months, etc ...
pico1180 wrote:Doesn't matter what you put in the listing. Ebay will let a buyer send something back for whatever reason they wont. If the seller doesn't corporate, eBay will just draft the sellers account anyways.
pico1180 wrote:Also, Wikipidia says the GeForce 2 wasn't released until a year after the 256. September 7th 2000 to be specific for the GF2 and the 256 was released October 11, 1999. That isn't correct I take it?
The first models to arrive after the original GeForce 2 GTS was the GeForce 2 Ultra and GeForce2 MX, launched in September 7, 2000
pico1180 wrote:I too want a GeForce 256 for a period correct 1999 build. I know there are better cards, but I want it for a period piece.
Also, there is a seller right now on eBay selling NV15's (GeForce 2 GTS) for $20
pico1180 wrote:In my search for a 256 I looked at what else was available during that time. The Matrox G400, and the ATI Rage Fury Pro. Those became targets for my search. I stopped following 3Dfx after the ATI Rage was released and I never took S3 seriously. So I personally don't know what those manufacturers were doing at the time. Perhaps information an all the video cards which were available at the time the 256 was would add more value then pointing out cards that came years later...
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest