Article View: alt.games.quake2
Article #598Re: Pure3d vs Monster3d
From: cal
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 00:00
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 00:00
21 lines
1205 bytes
1205 bytes
User1 wrote: > > In article <34372...@metrolink.net>, cal <cal> wrote: > >Anyone have a clue as to what the FPS will be between these 2 cards? > >I was thinking of buying a monster 3d card now I see the pure3d coming > >out which looks like it will be faster. > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the main differances between the > two cards is that the pure3d has 2 more megs of texture ram to play around > with, and has a neat-o output-to-TV function. For straight (sp?) 3d > power, I don't think there is any differance (since they both carry > the 3dxf voodoo chipset). > > - > - Gora > - Right about the extra memory for textures. Think Ill probally go with this card as opposed to the diamond monster. If theres no differance other then the output to TV function Ill take the pure3d.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<3439CBCE.1916@metrolink.net>Path:
mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<34372F1C.FE@metrolink.net> <61cbf5$pqu@redtail.cruzio.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
From: cal <c...@metrolink.net> Subject: Re: Pure3d vs Monster3d Date: 1997/10/07 Message-ID: <3439CBCE.1916@metrolink.net> X-Deja-AN: 278437577 References: <34372F1C.FE@metrolink.net> <61cbf5$pqu@redtail.cruzio.com> Reply-To: cal Organization: None Newsgroups: alt.games.quake2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit