I'm Not sure If I want the Deluxe or Pure. I dont want to wait (even two weeks), I have waited for along time already to get these cards. I'm not sure how much I'll need the DELUXE features. I can use them to export my work (I hope to use 3DSMax R3 on my PC to make 3d animations.) but I'm also purchasing a cd burner in the near future (I can put my work on CD!) I wan't the Card mainly for the DDR, when I first was looking to purchase a geforce card, I just wanted sdram with no added features or software, But now I want ddr sgram, and I'm not sure how much I'll be using the added features of the deluxe card. If I barley ever use them it wont be worth the Extra $110 I'll have to pay (110 after tax).
I live in Canada, things here cost around 40% more than in America
I was wondering if you could direct me to someone who could help me with this question?
Will the ASUS V6800 cards work with the K6BV3+ mother board from DFI ?
Respect My ATHORITAA!!!
[This message has been edited by slave (edited 02-06-2000).]
you mentioned studio max don't know about the other cards you mentioned but baloneyflaps the moderator in support said his company concerning max and animation which i think he is using switched there $1000 cards to the geforce in 12 or more machines and says they work quite well for them.
if this helps.
The V6600 Deluxe is the fastest non DDR GeForce. I think Asus o/c'ed it by default whenever you play 3D stuff. It won't be a DDR, but it isn't your typical SDRAM GeForce either. I would go with the SGRAM GeForce Deluxe and save your money for other things.
ETSEAN I would like if you read this whole Msg.
I have a very different opinion My friend....
Im am going to upgrade my cpu!
(the geforce will work at around the speed of a 700 Mhz proccesor on the graphics and my cpu currently wont do that bad!
I am buying a ddr card so the ther is less noticeablity of the bottleneck created my my CURRENT cpu!
Geforce is a great card for 3DSmax I have heard and I dont like the Riva TNT 2
(how do you know a 333 will be stable at 450 there is a chance it will not be! a very good chance To be stable means to be stable at all times for as long as you want! I will be rendering animations for days at a time, without any breaks for my PC! (this is normal)
Also by making animations in multiple layers I will reduce the time needed for rendering and I'll be able to do it in segments. This means Ill probally be able to render stuff in less time than the Average (Non profesional) person with you're setup, with my setup!
I dont consider getting a 333, of any type of processor, an upgrade over even my K6-2 450mhz. I do know of the reduced ability to do floating point math with out haveing 3Dnow enabled.
Riva TNT would also be more effected by the bottleneck created with a slower cpu! (as opposed to the Geforce DDR)
(P.S. I dont plan on ever using an overclocked system to do animations, I'll overclock only for fun!)
Here is some information I have recieved from another site:
Armin Gerritsen: When is overclocking a success?
This is the most important question. May people don't realise that successful overclocking is more then set you CPU to higher speed and see if it boots in Windows. Overclocking is successful when the result is stable system. But when is system stable? I once heard someone tell on usenet that he overclocked it's Celeron 300A to 450Mhz. He claimed that it hadn't crashed for five hours since he overclocked so his conclusion was that is was stable. Well I wouldn't call that stable yet. Stability is something you find out after many hours trying. Another example is yet another Celeron 300A user how claimed it's CPU was stable at 450 too. It "was perfectly stable and only crashes after 30 minutes when playing UnReal." Well, that's not stable.
Let me illustrate this by my own system. I owned an AMD K6-2 300 MHz with an ASUS P5A mainboard. Overclocking was quite easy and without any special adjustments I got it at 350 MHz. I could run Windows 98 without problems, run Final Reality or play Quake II for hours. I could have concluded that the system was stable. But as Windows NT users know NT is pickier on the CPU than Windows 98. Although my system booted Windows NT without problems and I could run all my applications (mainly Internet stuff, 3D tools and Visual C++) without problems. However I got about once or twice a week a Blue Screen of Death without any visible cause. Clocking my CPU back at 300 made the crashes disappear and I could run NT for weeks without crashes. Even more picky about the CPU then Windows NT is UnReal. Although I could play Quake II for hours UnReal crashed without any notice within a few minutes. I now have a K6-2 350 @ 380 and the same situation applies.
So this illustrates my two points: stability is only proven after days of operation and stability can differ from application to application. To make thing even more complicated one must realise that some non-overclocked systems also crash once in a while. So stable is something that depends on the applications and can only be determents after a few days a heavy use.
I need the Processor to always be trully stable in order to render for manys days non-stop!
I'm Also ssaying that you're recommendation to use overclocked hardware for rendering is a bad idea unless you are sure of its stability!
I plan on upgrading to possible an Atholon processor
(this information in the above quote is Written by Armin Gerritsen and taken from THIS SITE
also slave get more ram for those programs but i'll bet you probably have anyway, luke and baloney were right on the mark about ram cause i only had 66 64mg ram and upped to 128 pc100 rendering improved greatly in bryce and photoshop runs faster, wish i could afford a program like max out of my league or pocket that is to say.