Hey kids! What time is it? It's Howdy-Dood^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h time for
another Completely Random and Pointless Poll! Because if it's not
COMPLETELY random and pointless, it's not total CRAP!

---------------------------------------

Today, kids, let's figure out this: which GPU manufacturer's chipset
are YOU rockin' in your rigs?

* Nvidia (GeForce, etc)
They've got a near monopoly on the industry for a reason.
They're fast, capable and nearly everything supports them.

* AMD (Radeon, etc)
The scrappy underdog, as good (and often better) than
Nvidia, and usually cheaper too. Just don't mention
the drivers.

* Intel (HD, ARC, etc.)
The cheap version, sometimes okay, often crappy, but
often built into the motherboard so you don't really
have a choice except to use it

* Apple (M1/M2/M3)
What are these 'video games' of what you speak?

* Other
Whether it's old-tech (3DFX forever!), a small
manufacturer that provides that one feature you MUST
have, or some no-name company nobody has ever heard of,
you follow your own path

* Headless
Video cards are for time-wasting gamers. Your computers
are busy doing Important Stuff (tm). Sure, we'll just pretend
you're reading this post on teletype.

* Weird tech
Whether its some sort of neuralink or directly sensing
magnetic patterns emitted by the CPU, you've avoided
needing a video card entirely

---------------------------------------

Me, I'm on Team Nvidia. I'd /love/ to be more of a Radeon person, but
I've never really had a great experience with them. At best, the cards
worked as expected, but they've never impressed me. So I pay the
premium - and what a huge premium it too often is - for the solution
that 'just works'.

(Still, while I'm not sure I'd really want to return to the days when
we had dozens of vendors pushing their own proprietary solutions, I'm
not thrilled that the market has contracted to what is essentially
three corporations dominating sales.)

Nvidia - for all its sometimes skeeviness - has produced products that
have routinely satisfied my needs without any major hassles. They,
arguably, may not be the most powerful cards (certainly they don't
seem to offer the best 'bang for the buck') but their cards still are
quite capable and I don't have to worry as much about hardware or
software incompatibilities. I wish I could say the same for Intel
(which fails on performance) or AMD (which fails on ease-of-use).

My heart, though, will always remain with my 3DFX cards. Even though
my Win95 (Voodoo 1) and Win98 (Voodoo 3) computers aren't my daily
drivers, I still love booting into them just so I can run stuff on
native 3DFX hardware. Nvidia might trounce them in performance and
features, but never character and nostalgia. ;-)

How 'bout you... what graphics processor are you running? Our CRAP
poll needs the data!

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 20:40:25 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>* Nvidia (GeForce, etc)
> They've got a near monopoly on the industry for a reason.
> They're fast, capable and nearly everything supports them.

^ This

For the simple reason that everyone caters to Nvidia. Found that out ages
ago. If something in a game is messed up and it needs to be patched, it's
a patch for AMD. Mind you, there's no problem with the Radeon line or its
drivers, it's just the *game developers* who program for Nvidia first.

Now if only I could use a FreeSync monitor with it. I have a Gsync
monitor, but Gsync is not great (flicker), costs more due to proprietary
tech, and far fewer monitor models support it. I'd like standaradized VRR
please.

My go to third-party manufacturer is MSI. I tried a Zotac, and they
didn't care that the fans sounded like I lived next to an airport. It
also whistled. I recorded it and sent it to support and their answer was,
"Nope, sounds completely normal."

MSI? Same size fans. Same *number* of fans. They have to be maxed out and
spin at 3000rpm to make the noise the Zotac card was making at 2000rpm.
And the Zotac fans *always* ran at 2000. The MSI fans run at about 1600.

I used to be a die-hard EVGA customer, but then they died hard on Nvidia.
My last card made by them is a 1080GTX. Anyone know why they left?

I currently run an MSI 4060Ti RTX 16GB and it meets my every need.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On 2/5/24 19:40, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>
> Hey kids! What time is it? It's Howdy-Dood^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h time for
> another Completely Random and Pointless Poll! Because if it's not
> COMPLETELY random and pointless, it's not total CRAP!
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Today, kids, let's figure out this: which GPU manufacturer's chipset
> are YOU rockin' in your rigs?
>
>
> * Nvidia (GeForce, etc)
> They've got a near monopoly on the industry for a reason.
> They're fast, capable and nearly everything supports them.
>
> * AMD (Radeon, etc)
> The scrappy underdog, as good (and often better) than
> Nvidia, and usually cheaper too. Just don't mention
> the drivers.
>
> * Intel (HD, ARC, etc.)
> The cheap version, sometimes okay, often crappy, but
> often built into the motherboard so you don't really
> have a choice except to use it
>
> * Apple (M1/M2/M3)
> What are these 'video games' of what you speak?
>
> * Other
> Whether it's old-tech (3DFX forever!), a small
> manufacturer that provides that one feature you MUST
> have, or some no-name company nobody has ever heard of,
> you follow your own path
>
> * Headless
> Video cards are for time-wasting gamers. Your computers
> are busy doing Important Stuff (tm). Sure, we'll just pretend
> you're reading this post on teletype.
>
> * Weird tech
> Whether its some sort of neuralink or directly sensing
> magnetic patterns emitted by the CPU, you've avoided
> needing a video card entirely
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Me, I'm on Team Nvidia. I'd /love/ to be more of a Radeon person, but
> I've never really had a great experience with them. At best, the cards
> worked as expected, but they've never impressed me. So I pay the
> premium - and what a huge premium it too often is - for the solution
> that 'just works'.
>
> (Still, while I'm not sure I'd really want to return to the days when
> we had dozens of vendors pushing their own proprietary solutions, I'm
> not thrilled that the market has contracted to what is essentially
> three corporations dominating sales.)
>
> Nvidia - for all its sometimes skeeviness - has produced products that
> have routinely satisfied my needs without any major hassles. They,
> arguably, may not be the most powerful cards (certainly they don't
> seem to offer the best 'bang for the buck') but their cards still are
> quite capable and I don't have to worry as much about hardware or
> software incompatibilities. I wish I could say the same for Intel
> (which fails on performance) or AMD (which fails on ease-of-use).
>
> My heart, though, will always remain with my 3DFX cards. Even though
> my Win95 (Voodoo 1) and Win98 (Voodoo 3) computers aren't my daily
> drivers, I still love booting into them just so I can run stuff on
> native 3DFX hardware. Nvidia might trounce them in performance and
> features, but never character and nostalgia. ;-)
>
>
>
> How 'bout you... what graphics processor are you running? Our CRAP
> poll needs the data!

Intel. Thinkpad. Need I say more?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

> Today, kids, let's figure out this: which GPU manufacturer's chipset
> are YOU rockin' in your rigs?
>
>
> * Nvidia (GeForce, etc)
> They've got a near monopoly on the industry for a reason.
> They're fast, capable and nearly everything supports them.

Nuff said.

> * Intel (HD, ARC, etc.)
> The cheap version, sometimes okay, often crappy, but
> often built into the motherboard so you don't really
> have a choice except to use it

Something for my lightweight laptop. The couple of games I've tried
there didn't even run... And it's not a supermarket cheapie either. I
wish they'd put something that works in if they're going to call it
"core i7".

> * Headless
> Video cards are for time-wasting gamers. Your computers
> are busy doing Important Stuff (tm). Sure, we'll just pretend
> you're reading this post on teletype.

But of course. A router PC, a little CM3+ Pi serving some purposes and
an old Lenovo M625Q serving others. And a couple of backup servers.

It's also possible I had too much time on my hands during the
pandemic... And of course, except for the router those boxes do have a
video output of some kind.

> * Other
> Whether it's old-tech (3DFX forever!), a small
> manufacturer that provides that one feature you MUST
> have, or some no-name company nobody has ever heard of,
> you follow your own path

The backup server is from HP and their motherboard integrates an ancient
Matrox GPU, a G200. All it does it produce a wobbly picture in the VGA
output. Or possibly there's something in it for the strange HP remote
management stuff which seems to be all video based. It even records
screen vids for you but doesn't do a great job with telling you whether
you're viewing a live boot or something recorded earlier.

> (Still, while I'm not sure I'd really want to return to the days when
> we had dozens of vendors pushing their own proprietary solutions, I'm
> not thrilled that the market has contracted to what is essentially
> three corporations dominating sales.)

Looks like Intel's entry into the add-on GPU market seems to have
failed. I guess they'll pull out soon.

On 2/5/2024 5:40 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>
> Hey kids! What time is it? It's Howdy-Dood^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h time for
> another Completely Random and Pointless Poll! Because if it's not
> COMPLETELY random and pointless, it's not total CRAP!
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Today, kids, let's figure out this: which GPU manufacturer's chipset
> are YOU rockin' in your rigs?
>
>
> * Nvidia (GeForce, etc)

Here. I consider AMD each time, but every time the price/performance in
games and reliability is still with Nvidia. I also got burned
litterally and figuratively in ancient times with an AMD CPU and I've
never forgiven that.
> * Apple (M1/M2/M3)

Does an Apple phone count? There are app Usenet readers after all.
There's certainly plenty of games to play on them. Most of them aren't
good, but they're there.

I can't be bothered to look up what GPU if any they use.

> * Other
> * Headless
> * Weird tech

I also have an Oculus Q2, so whatever tech it uses. As well as a number
of old consoles and a Switch.

> Me, I'm on Team Nvidia. I'd /love/ to be more of a Radeon person, but
> I've never really had a great experience with them. At best, the cards
> worked as expected, but they've never impressed me. So I pay the
> premium - and what a huge premium it too often is - for the solution
> that 'just works'.

I think the working as expected varies by manufacturer. I'm happy with
MSI currently, but the tides of quality, they do change.

> My heart, though, will always remain with my 3DFX cards. Even though
> my Win95 (Voodoo 1) and Win98 (Voodoo 3) computers aren't my daily
> drivers, I still love booting into them just so I can run stuff on
> native 3DFX hardware. Nvidia might trounce them in performance and
> features, but never character and nostalgia. ;-)

I had a Voodoo of some sort at some time in the past. Maybe a 2?

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 2/5/2024 6:14 PM, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 20:40:25 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>> * Nvidia (GeForce, etc)
>> They've got a near monopoly on the industry for a reason.
>> They're fast, capable and nearly everything supports them.
>
> ^ This
>
> For the simple reason that everyone caters to Nvidia. Found that out ages
> ago. If something in a game is messed up and it needs to be patched, it's
> a patch for AMD. Mind you, there's no problem with the Radeon line or its
> drivers, it's just the *game developers* who program for Nvidia first.
>
> Now if only I could use a FreeSync monitor with it. I have a Gsync
> monitor, but Gsync is not great (flicker), costs more due to proprietary
> tech, and far fewer monitor models support it. I'd like standaradized VRR
> please.
>
> My go to third-party manufacturer is MSI. I tried a Zotac, and they
> didn't care that the fans sounded like I lived next to an airport. It
> also whistled. I recorded it and sent it to support and their answer was,
> "Nope, sounds completely normal."
>
> MSI? Same size fans. Same *number* of fans. They have to be maxed out and
> spin at 3000rpm to make the noise the Zotac card was making at 2000rpm.
> And the Zotac fans *always* ran at 2000. The MSI fans run at about 1600.

Same, MSI had been good since my last MB from them was the most stable
I've had. I went with ASUS again as the cost difference was
prohibitive, but I know ASUS has never been great. I somewhat regret
it, but the MB has been stable so far.

>
> I used to be a die-hard EVGA customer, but then they died hard on Nvidia.
> My last card made by them is a 1080GTX. Anyone know why they left?

That's what I used to have as well. Apperantly they make up to a 3060
currently.

What happened? A bunch of weird statements about Etherium, and
'mistreatment' from NVIDIA whatever that means, then some rumors of
family squabbles affecting the company. Sound like they're slowly
imploding.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

Still on NVIDIA in my PCs, but they're old!

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey kids! What time is it? It's Howdy-Dood^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h time for
> another Completely Random and Pointless Poll! Because if it's not
> COMPLETELY random and pointless, it's not total CRAP!

> ---------------------------------------

> Today, kids, let's figure out this: which GPU manufacturer's chipset
> are YOU rockin' in your rigs?

> * Nvidia (GeForce, etc)
> They've got a near monopoly on the industry for a reason.
> They're fast, capable and nearly everything supports them.

> * AMD (Radeon, etc)
> The scrappy underdog, as good (and often better) than
> Nvidia, and usually cheaper too. Just don't mention
> the drivers.

> * Intel (HD, ARC, etc.)
> The cheap version, sometimes okay, often crappy, but
> often built into the motherboard so you don't really
> have a choice except to use it

> * Apple (M1/M2/M3)
> What are these 'video games' of what you speak?

> * Other
> Whether it's old-tech (3DFX forever!), a small
> manufacturer that provides that one feature you MUST
> have, or some no-name company nobody has ever heard of,
> you follow your own path

> * Headless
> Video cards are for time-wasting gamers. Your computers
> are busy doing Important Stuff (tm). Sure, we'll just pretend
> you're reading this post on teletype.

> * Weird tech
> Whether its some sort of neuralink or directly sensing
> magnetic patterns emitted by the CPU, you've avoided
> needing a video card entirely

> ---------------------------------------

> Me, I'm on Team Nvidia. I'd /love/ to be more of a Radeon person, but
> I've never really had a great experience with them. At best, the cards
> worked as expected, but they've never impressed me. So I pay the
> premium - and what a huge premium it too often is - for the solution
> that 'just works'.

> (Still, while I'm not sure I'd really want to return to the days when
> we had dozens of vendors pushing their own proprietary solutions, I'm
> not thrilled that the market has contracted to what is essentially
> three corporations dominating sales.)

> Nvidia - for all its sometimes skeeviness - has produced products that
> have routinely satisfied my needs without any major hassles. They,
> arguably, may not be the most powerful cards (certainly they don't
> seem to offer the best 'bang for the buck') but their cards still are
> quite capable and I don't have to worry as much about hardware or
> software incompatibilities. I wish I could say the same for Intel
> (which fails on performance) or AMD (which fails on ease-of-use).

> My heart, though, will always remain with my 3DFX cards. Even though
> my Win95 (Voodoo 1) and Win98 (Voodoo 3) computers aren't my daily
> drivers, I still love booting into them just so I can run stuff on
> native 3DFX hardware. Nvidia might trounce them in performance and
> features, but never character and nostalgia. ;-)

> How 'bout you... what graphics processor are you running? Our CRAP
> poll needs the data!

--
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped..." --Philippians 2:5-6. Slammy leaky rainy nesty. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 20:40:25 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>Today, kids, let's figure out this: which GPU manufacturer's chipset
>are YOU rockin' in your rigs?

My first 3d accelerator was a RIVA TNT. That is Nvidia isn't it? If it
is, I have been using Nvidia chipsets ever since that card.

Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> writes:

> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 20:40:25 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Today, kids, let's figure out this: which GPU manufacturer's chipset
>>are YOU rockin' in your rigs?
>
> My first 3d accelerator was a RIVA TNT. That is Nvidia isn't it? If it
> is, I have been using Nvidia chipsets ever since that card.

Sure it was Nvidia. I had a TNT2 Ultra, after, I think, a Voodoo 2 which
was paired with something else for 2D, no idea what. It's too bad I'm
pretty vague on how my GPU history went, I have some idea on how my CPU
history went at least.

On 2/6/2024 8:57 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>
> Intel. Thinkpad. Need I say more?

Not sure you should have even said that much!

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 2/6/24 19:11, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 2/6/2024 8:57 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>> Intel. Thinkpad. Need I say more?
>
> Not sure you should have even said that much!

Why?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2/6/2024 9:15 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 2/6/24 19:11, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 2/6/2024 8:57 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>
>>> Intel. Thinkpad. Need I say more?
>>
>> Not sure you should have even said that much!
>
> Why?

Because I am a genius gluteus maximus.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 07:54:00 -0800, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Dimensional Traveler wrote:

>On 2/6/2024 9:15 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> On 2/6/24 19:11, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 2/6/2024 8:57 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Intel. Thinkpad. Need I say more?
>>>
>>> Not sure you should have even said that much!
>>
>> Why?
>
>Because I am a genius gluteus maximus.

A canny fanny, eh?

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:11:24 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 2/6/2024 8:57 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>> Intel. Thinkpad. Need I say more?

>Not sure you should have even said that much!

Intel's GPUs aren't /that/ bad. They aren't anywhere near as powerful
as its competitors, but when I use them, I'm frequently surprised by
their performance.... considering they are integrated video. No, you
aren't going to be playing the latest "Call of Duty" on them, but I
wouldn't be surprised if the newer cards could handle "Crysis".
Certainly for day-to-day activities, they're quite credible.

Frankly, it's amazing how much processing power we have at our
fingertips. That we can now look down on modern integrated graphics
chipsets speaks as to how spoiled we've become by how powerful PCs
have become. Ten or fifteen years ago, these GPUs would have ruled the
roost.

(And that's not a complaint against people who besmirch integrated
graphics; sure, given the choice I'd much rather a discrete card
myself. It's more of an observation about the technology itself).

Similarly, Apples M1/2/3 Silicon lines are really good too. They are
not - despite some misleading benchmark results - really the
equivalent of 3080 GeForce GPUs as has been claimed - but it's still a
lot of raw processing power in a tiny package.

Looking back at the original CRAP Poll, I realize that I forgot to add
ARM's offerings to the listing... and AMD's APU (integrated CPU/GPU)
probably deserved a mention too (especially since that is what powers
Valve's Steam Deck)

On 2/7/24 11:44, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:11:24 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2024 8:57 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>
>>> Intel. Thinkpad. Need I say more?
>
>> Not sure you should have even said that much!
>
> Intel's GPUs aren't /that/ bad. They aren't anywhere near as powerful
> as its competitors, but when I use them, I'm frequently surprised by
> their performance.... considering they are integrated video. No, you
> aren't going to be playing the latest "Call of Duty" on them, but I
> wouldn't be surprised if the newer cards could handle "Crysis".
> Certainly for day-to-day activities, they're quite credible.
>
> Frankly, it's amazing how much processing power we have at our
> fingertips. That we can now look down on modern integrated graphics
> chipsets speaks as to how spoiled we've become by how powerful PCs
> have become. Ten or fifteen years ago, these GPUs would have ruled the
> roost.
>
> (And that's not a complaint against people who besmirch integrated
> graphics; sure, given the choice I'd much rather a discrete card
> myself. It's more of an observation about the technology itself).
>
> Similarly, Apples M1/2/3 Silicon lines are really good too. They are
> not - despite some misleading benchmark results - really the
> equivalent of 3080 GeForce GPUs as has been claimed - but it's still a
> lot of raw processing power in a tiny package.
>
>
>
> Looking back at the original CRAP Poll, I realize that I forgot to add
> ARM's offerings to the listing... and AMD's APU (integrated CPU/GPU)
> probably deserved a mention too (especially since that is what powers
> Valve's Steam Deck)

Fair. I've accepted never being able to play modern AAA games tho :)
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2/7/2024 8:32 AM, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 07:54:00 -0800, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2024 9:15 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> On 2/6/24 19:11, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 2/6/2024 8:57 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Intel. Thinkpad. Need I say more?
>>>>
>>>> Not sure you should have even said that much!
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Because I am a genius gluteus maximus.
>
> A canny fanny, eh?
>
Sounds like the British version of the American term.... :P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 23:47:17 +0200, Anssi Saari
<anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:

>Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 20:40:25 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
>> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Today, kids, let's figure out this: which GPU manufacturer's chipset
>>>are YOU rockin' in your rigs?
>>
>> My first 3d accelerator was a RIVA TNT. That is Nvidia isn't it? If it
>> is, I have been using Nvidia chipsets ever since that card.
>
>Sure it was Nvidia. I had a TNT2 Ultra, after, I think, a Voodoo 2 which
>was paired with something else for 2D, no idea what. It's too bad I'm
>pretty vague on how my GPU history went, I have some idea on how my CPU
>history went at least.

It really depends on how you define "GPU". Was the Voodoo really a
GPU? A lot of people would say, no; it was merely a 3D accelerator.
But if it was, then how far back do you go with that definition? Was
an old Cirrus Logic "Windows Accelerator" a GPU? What about an MPEG
card? Did the dedicated blitters on the Nintendo or Amiga count?

Generally, I tend to believe a card needs to have at least hardware
assisted transform and lighting - or, a bit later, programmable
shaders - before I'd consider it a GPU. In both cases, NVidia would
win that prize of having the first consumer-level cards available with
those features (original GeForce256 for hardware T&L, GeForce 3 for
programmable shaders). But that's largely a personal choice (albeit
not one I'm alone in) rather than any official definition.

Like you, the exact details of my "GPU" history are mostly forgotten.
I remember a few highlights - the Matrox Mystique, some sort of
3DBlaster, the 3DFX cards - but those were only a selection of all the
cards I owned. The mid to late 90s were an exciting time for PC Gamers
with more money than sense, and it sometimes felt like I was buying a
new 3D card every month (it wasn't quite that frequent really... it
just felt that way).

but I am fairly certain that my first 'GPU by the terms of my own
personal definition' would have been a GeForce II 32MB (brand
unknown). After that I largely stuck with Nvidia for use with my daily
driver PC. I tried Radeons (and most of my laptops inevitably had
Intel integrated graphics) but Nvidia always seemed the safest bet.

On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 23:47:17 +0200, Anssi Saari
<anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:

>Sure it was Nvidia. I had a TNT2 Ultra, after, I think, a Voodoo 2 which
>was paired with something else for 2D, no idea what. It's too bad I'm
>pretty vague on how my GPU history went, I have some idea on how my CPU
>history went at least.

I have a better idea how my sound card history went. My first card was
a Game Blaster but I wished it was a Roland MT-32!

I was rabidly anti-nvidia for many years, running an early ATI card, then
the magnificent 9700Pro, paired with the voodoo1/2, and at some point a
voodoo3 (forget if before or after the 9700pro). More recently I've bought
and used each flagship Radeon card for the last few generations.

When DLSS appeared, the writing was on the wall however, and when a 4090FE
magically appeared at my local bestbuy, I slapped down the CC and haven't
regretted it one bit -- the quietest and coolest-running card I've ever had.
Unless the unlikely opportunity arises to both acquire a 5090 (or whatever)
in the fall and recoup most of my 4090 investment, I'll be using this same
same hardware for years to come.

rms

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 20:40:25 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>How 'bout you... what graphics processor are you running? Our CRAP
>poll needs the data!

ATi/AMD Radeon since the days of the HD4850

Previously I switched between ATi and Nvidia. I loved the Geforce 2Ti
cards.

I think it was the FX5xxx series that did it for me with Nvidia, but
it was so long ago that I can't clearly remember.

I currently use the Sapphire RX 7800 XT Nitro and have used Sapphire
for as far back as I can remember

--
Rob

On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 17:13:08 -0500, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 23:47:17 +0200, Anssi Saari
><anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>
>>Sure it was Nvidia. I had a TNT2 Ultra, after, I think, a Voodoo 2 which
>>was paired with something else for 2D, no idea what. It's too bad I'm
>>pretty vague on how my GPU history went, I have some idea on how my CPU
>>history went at least.
>
>I have a better idea how my sound card history went. My first card was
>a Game Blaster but I wished it was a Roland MT-32!

I'm /fairly/ sure my first card was a Thunderboard, an 8-bit clone of
the original Sound Blaster created by Media Vision. It actually was
quite an acceptable board, and its output was transformative. Gone
were the screeching beeps and blats of the 1-bit PC speaker; now there
was actual MUSIC and digital speech!

I purchased a Thunderboard because it was inexpensive (at least half
the price of a SoundBlaster) and, at the time, I really had no
expectations of what the card would do or how impactful a sound-card
could be. So, at that point, it was hard to justify the $200 for a
SoundBlaster when I could get (nearly) the same experience from the
Thunderboard... which might ultimately, not even be worth that price.
Who knew? Like I said, it was only AFTER the device was installed that
I realized how important a sound card was to PC gaming.

I didn't stay with the Thunderboard for long, though; it was maybe
only six months before I upgraded to a SoundBlaster Pro, and then
began my long journey exploring audio hardware. My current PC still
rocks a discrete soundcard rather than relying entirely on onboard
audio, even though I realize that the stuff integrated onto the
mainboard is more than good enough for my needs. I think that has a
lot to do with how impressive that original Thunderboard was, and an
unconscious desire to relive that amazing experience so long ago...

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>* AMD (Radeon, etc)
> The scrappy underdog, as good (and often better) than
> Nvidia, and usually cheaper too. Just don't mention
> the drivers.

I've always gone with ATI/AMD, they've always offered the better price
per performance when I was considering what video card to buy. I haven't
had a problem with drivers.

>* Intel (HD, ARC, etc.)
> The cheap version, sometimes okay, often crappy, but
> often built into the motherboard so you don't really
> have a choice except to use it

Technically, I also have Intel graphics in my current PC as part of
the CPU. I actually used it for a while before I bought my current
graphics card and it wasn't too bad.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

rms <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:
>When DLSS appeared, the writing was on the wall however, and when a 4090FE
>magically appeared at my local bestbuy, I slapped down the CC and haven't
>regretted it one bit -- the quietest and coolest-running card I've ever had.
>Unless the unlikely opportunity arises to both acquire a 5090 (or whatever)
>in the fall and recoup most of my 4090 investment, I'll be using this same
>same hardware for years to come.

The Nvidia RTX 4090 is a 450W card, if it's not the hotest-running card
you ever used then you're only using it at a fraction of its potential.
At least turn off the DLSS that you don't actually need and see real
frames, not AI generated ones. At full performance the 4090 FE may not
be the loudest card you ever had, it's not a true blower afer all, but
if it's the quietest then I doubt you're even managing to get it to 50%
of it's possible performance.

An RTX 4080 FE, which has the same heat sink and fans as the 4090 FE,
would've been even cooler and quieter and apparently would've still have
offered more performance than you're actually using.

It's like you bought a Ferrari supercar for city driving and the best
thing you can say about it that you're getting better gas mileage.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 05:08:41 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
(Ross Ridge) wrote:

>rms <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:
>>When DLSS appeared, the writing was on the wall however, and when a 4090FE
>>magically appeared at my local bestbuy, I slapped down the CC and haven't
>>regretted it one bit -- the quietest and coolest-running card I've ever had.
>>Unless the unlikely opportunity arises to both acquire a 5090 (or whatever)
>>in the fall and recoup most of my 4090 investment, I'll be using this same
>>same hardware for years to come.
>
>The Nvidia RTX 4090 is a 450W card, if it's not the hotest-running card
>you ever used then you're only using it at a fraction of its potential.
>At least turn off the DLSS that you don't actually need and see real
>frames, not AI generated ones. At full performance the 4090 FE may not
>be the loudest card you ever had, it's not a true blower afer all, but
>if it's the quietest then I doubt you're even managing to get it to 50%
>of it's possible performance.

Even the loudest cards of today are quiet compared to the cacophony we
used to endure. I dread turning on my old XP computer because of the
noise. You literally have to raise your voice to be heard above it.
And that was considered relatively quiet for its day.

(My Win98 computer is slightly better, but only because the Voodoo 3
doesn't have any fans on it.)

We are absolutely spoiled by modern PCs, where some of the loudest
computers of 2024 would probably have won an award in 2004 for being
so quiet. ;-)

(Every now and again, the pump of my AIO cooler kicks in. It's the
quietest 'tick tick tick' noise - a pen dropping to the floor is
louder - and yet it drives me nuts when I hear it, I am so used to its
usual silence)

;-)

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 18:26:56 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm /fairly/ sure my first card was a Thunderboard, an 8-bit clone of
>the original Sound Blaster created by Media Vision. It actually was
>quite an acceptable board, and its output was transformative. Gone
>were the screeching beeps and blats of the 1-bit PC speaker; now there
>was actual MUSIC and digital speech!

I remember Media Vision. I had a Pro Audio Spectrum 16 from them back
in the day.

>I didn't stay with the Thunderboard for long, though; it was maybe
>only six months before I upgraded to a SoundBlaster Pro, and then
>began my long journey exploring audio hardware. My current PC still
>rocks a discrete soundcard rather than relying entirely on onboard
>audio, even though I realize that the stuff integrated onto the
>mainboard is more than good enough for my needs. I think that has a
>lot to do with how impressive that original Thunderboard was, and an
>unconscious desire to relive that amazing experience so long ago...

Yeah, I have not had a standalone sound card in my PC for a very long
time. I do have a good stereo system connected to my PC though which
helps.