Elrood
2004-09-17, 16:50:55
Hallo
In diesem älteren Zitat (irgendwann vor April 2002) hat John Carmack mal die Namensgebung der GF4 MX440 kommentiert. Hoffe das das nicht schon alle hier kennen.
"NVIDIA has really made a mess of the naming conventions here. I always thought it was bad enough that GF2 was just a speed bumped GF1, while GF3 had significant architectural improvements over GF2. I expected GF4 to be the speed bumped GF3, but calling the NV17 GF4-MX really sucks.
GF4-MX will still run Doom properly, but it will be using the NV10 codepath with only 2 texture units & no vertex shaders. A GF3 or Radeon 8500 will be much better performers. The GF4-MX may still be the card of choice for many people depending on pricing, especially considering that many games won't use 4 textures & vertex programs, but damn, I wish they had named it something else."
;D
In diesem älteren Zitat (irgendwann vor April 2002) hat John Carmack mal die Namensgebung der GF4 MX440 kommentiert. Hoffe das das nicht schon alle hier kennen.
"NVIDIA has really made a mess of the naming conventions here. I always thought it was bad enough that GF2 was just a speed bumped GF1, while GF3 had significant architectural improvements over GF2. I expected GF4 to be the speed bumped GF3, but calling the NV17 GF4-MX really sucks.
GF4-MX will still run Doom properly, but it will be using the NV10 codepath with only 2 texture units & no vertex shaders. A GF3 or Radeon 8500 will be much better performers. The GF4-MX may still be the card of choice for many people depending on pricing, especially considering that many games won't use 4 textures & vertex programs, but damn, I wish they had named it something else."
;D