Oxygen vs Gaming cards ? ?

[Guest]

I do a lot of Photoshop, CAD 3D Modelling. 3D Studio Rendering and Animation in my schoolwork.

Is the 3D LAbs Qxygen VX1 32 MB VGA card which is supposed to be designed for these applications better or the more popular Geforce/Radeon/Voodoo/Kyro Cards which seemed to offer more advanced and complicated architecture? Prices are around the same. Gaming is not as secondary but I hope it will not be handicapped.

Any knowledge on this guard and advice is appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[Bud]

Here's somthing an engineer came over and told me the other day. His PIII600 with an oxygen video card is slower in PRO-Engineer than Pro-e on his home pc which has a geforceMX...That's gonna get alot of replies, I know...There's probably something else going on there....But that's what he told me.


"That's right, I'm the guy who can feel the difference between 50FPS & 100FPS in LandWarrior."

 

[pvsurfer]

As a Photoshop user, I can only say that you should place a lot higher value on a card's image-quality than its frame-rate.

I am not a game player, so when I was checking out video cards almost a year ago, to my eyes the GeForce cards did not have nearly the image-quality of the Radeon or Matrox. I finally decided that the Matrox was the best for 2D (but I never looked at Oxygen). Since you are also into 3D, you may want to consider Radeon (or the new Matrox G550)!

 

[noko]

In 3d modelling the GF2 line will kick the Oxygen, Radeon, Matrox, Voodoo all over the place including the MX versions. Check out this article about 3d Studio Max and commercial cards, it is a eye opener:

<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/video/3dmax/" target="_new">http://www.xbitlabs.com/video/3dmax/</A>

For 2d work the Matrox then followed by the Radeon would be good choices.

<b><font color=blue>1.5</b></font color=blue> T-Bird
<b><font color=red>2.1</b></font color=red> P4 Speed

 

[noko]

For 2d performance read the following article pitting the Radeon against a Matrox:

<A HREF="http://firingsquad.gamers.com/guides/2dperformance/" target="_new">http://firingsquad.gamers.com/guides/2dperformance/</A>

<b><font color=blue>1.5</b></font color=blue> T-Bird
<b><font color=red>2.1</b></font color=red> P4 Speed

 

[pvsurfer]

noko: Funny you should reference the FiringSquad 2D Performance article. After I had seen it, I sent the author the following email (summarizing my thoughts about it).

<i>Alan:

First, I want to thank you for your recent 'Performance in 2D' article. There are still a lot of us who spend the great majority of our PC-time working with 2D apps.

Just a couple of observations:

IMHO, conducting benchmarks at resolutions over 1600x1200 isn't indicative of real-world users. As you stated (a few times) in your article, 'very few 2D users run desktops past 1600x1200'. I never do, nor do any of my graphic-artist and image-editing co-professionals.

Secondly, I would request that in your follow-on article, you address the all-important subject of image-quality. I realize this can only be evaluated subjectively, but when you are dealing with images on a daily basis, image-quality becomes the very most appreciated performance-characteristic of a video sub-system (card + monitor).</i>

Thanks!

 

[noko]

I hope they continue this article as they promised and incorporate exactly what you ask for in the second part of Image quality of various cards for programs like Photoshop, web designing and not to forget desktop publishing. Seems like Matrox has those covered well with the duel head design. ATI has the Radeon VE which probably has some good 2d but a comparison is needed.

<b><font color=blue>1.5</b></font color=blue> T-Bird
<b><font color=red>2.1</b></font color=red> P4 Speed

 

[Gog]

Unless you can afford the R4 with dual glint engines, I would go for a geforce (2 or 3) or Radeon 2 when it arrives put the cash difference into RAM or a good night down the pub!

(I work with bryce, truespace and max on a GF2 card that has quadro fix and have no problems working. The dual glint version of the oxygen does drive max and truespace better (I borrowed one and fitted it in my machine for a couple of weeks while a friend was in the Seychelles)but I couldn't warrant the extra £1000 pounds (ish) for the card.) Don't play games on the works machine so can't comment on that aspect.

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

Look at the size of that thing!

 

[Guest]

thanks a lot guys. but anymore advice welcomed.

being a student with a budget.. there goes the only card i can afford (oxygen XV1) and go for the geforce cards instead. the VX1 does not really impress me. have to compromise with the quality for the need of speed. i have been using an ATI fury for 3 years and it is fine with the quality. the other recommendations are beyond reach.

 

[Guest]

noko : the test u showed me is really good. but the reviewer seems to be trying to guard the oxygen against gaming cards really hard even when evidence is against him. personally i think speed overides the quality a lot when the price is like 3:1 here.

also to note that i think the geforce used is the basic 256 version, not even the mx or gts. the gts can go almost 3 times faster than the 256.

 

[noko]

No, the test I reference you too have the following graphics card:

Creative 3D Blaster Annihilator 2 (GeForce2 GTS) 32MB 200/333MHz (128bit SDRAM), drv Detonator III (ver. 6.50);
Suma Platinum GeForce2 MX 32MB 175/166MHz (128bit SDRAM), drv Detonator III (ver. 6.50);
ATI RADEON 64MB 166/333MHz (128bit SDRAM), drv ver. 4.3.3042;
Matrox Millennium G450 32MB 125/333MHz (64bit DDR SDRAM) drv ver. 4.73.019;
3dfx Voodoo5 5500 64MB 166/166MHz (2x128bit SDRAM), drv ver. 1.00.00.

As you can see it is using a GF2, note that the GPU speed is more overiding in the benchmarks then memory type, thus a overclocked GF2 MX400 with a GPU at 250mhz would beat the GF2 at 200mhz. So you can get allot of bang for your buck with a MX400 in 3dsMax and like programs. That doesn't make it a better gaming card but for this application a faster MX400 would be faster.

<b><font color=blue>1.5</b></font color=blue> T-Bird
<b><font color=red>2.1</b></font color=red> P4 Speed<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 07/25/01 05:06 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

alrite i understand now.

any sites on overclocking ? never done it before.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Jooniper on 07/25/01 05:33 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[noko]

This would make one awesome 3dsMax card:

<b>Gainward's MX400</b>
It can do two monitors at once, great for CAD and 3d work, and clocked at 240mhz core and 240mhz mem. It would slaughter the GF2 in 3dsmax. Look at the review right here:

<A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/01q2/010625/index.html" target="_new">http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/01q2/010625/index.html</A>

<b><font color=blue>1.5</b></font color=blue> T-Bird
<b><font color=red>2.1</b></font color=red> P4 Speed

 

[noko]

Also note in the tests that the Radeon tested was at 166mhz for the core. If you get a coveted Radeon 64 SE, they are clocked at 200mhz core, 200mhz mem. The Radeon SE core will do 250mhz plus while the mem is more limiting to around 230mhz. But the same principle would apply, the Radeon with a 250mhz core would be around 50% faster in those same benchmarks in 3dsmax since memory is not the limiting factor but core speed. So even the Radeon would look pretty good and in more tests it would be the fastest. Take a look again at the benchmarks and you can calculate the percentage change in the benchmark by how much you overclock. The GF2 mx was at 175mhz compared to the GF2 at 200mhz and the performance for the GF2 was virtually 14% faster corresponding to the speed of the core.

<b><font color=blue>1.5</b></font color=blue> T-Bird
<b><font color=red>2.1</b></font color=red> P4 Speed