![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
s3 chrome vid card
- Thread starter ahho
- Start date
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
S3 has been run by incompetent idiots since inception.
They rode their 2D empire for too long. They were very popular 2D chips, especially the Trio 64, but they soon had competition in the market. Then they added half-assed 3D features with the ViRGE...and rode that train for way too long.
They introduced the Savage 3D when people had all but counted them out of the 3D race, and it looked promising on paper But in reality, yields sucked, drivers sucked, the 64-bit bus sucked, and the 8MB memory limit sucked.
They tried to play with the big boys with their Savage 2000, but it was late, and when finally released it was raped by the GeForce 256, mostly due to the (still) bad drivers.
Via bought S3 for one reason only: to integrate S3 video into their chipsets. Via only makes standalone cards because it makes people remember that S3 is still around, and the features developed for standalone cards eventually make their way into integrated video chipsets.
These latest cards are VERY slow considering what their hardware is clocked at, so the drivers probably still suck. Also, please note that S3, being a mostly integrated solution like Intel's GMA series, doesn't have the same memory optimizations as ATI and Nvidia have developed over the years. Thus, it will probably perform SIGNIFICANTLY slower than an equivilantly-clocked ATI or Nvidia card, even if the drivers improve.
They rode their 2D empire for too long. They were very popular 2D chips, especially the Trio 64, but they soon had competition in the market. Then they added half-assed 3D features with the ViRGE...and rode that train for way too long.
They introduced the Savage 3D when people had all but counted them out of the 3D race, and it looked promising on paper But in reality, yields sucked, drivers sucked, the 64-bit bus sucked, and the 8MB memory limit sucked.
They tried to play with the big boys with their Savage 2000, but it was late, and when finally released it was raped by the GeForce 256, mostly due to the (still) bad drivers.
Via bought S3 for one reason only: to integrate S3 video into their chipsets. Via only makes standalone cards because it makes people remember that S3 is still around, and the features developed for standalone cards eventually make their way into integrated video chipsets.
These latest cards are VERY slow considering what their hardware is clocked at, so the drivers probably still suck. Also, please note that S3, being a mostly integrated solution like Intel's GMA series, doesn't have the same memory optimizations as ATI and Nvidia have developed over the years. Thus, it will probably perform SIGNIFICANTLY slower than an equivilantly-clocked ATI or Nvidia card, even if the drivers improve.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
They do have some things going for them though. They perform about the same as a GeForce 6600, they use far less power, they produce far less heat, and if they can keep up competition in the midrange market we could see the average midrange card price fall a bit from its current $200 mark.
I believe that I read a review that claimed there was no card out on the market that used less power than the Chrome S27.
I almost bought one just to screw around with but I decided I should just keep my curiousity and my money.
A lot of the benchmarks on it actually seemed pretty decent -- especially since the card has fallen to $77 on newegg. It would usually beat a 6600 unless in an OpenGL game, but the 6600DDR2 edition would usually beat it.
Drivers actually weren't too bad according to the review, either. Only one game wouldn't run (AOE3 would run with messed up textures -- probably not assigning to SM2.0 correctly or something) and BF2 wouldn't run with AA on.
An article with good information and benchmarks:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/s3-chrome-s27.html
I almost bought one just to screw around with but I decided I should just keep my curiousity and my money.
A lot of the benchmarks on it actually seemed pretty decent -- especially since the card has fallen to $77 on newegg. It would usually beat a 6600 unless in an OpenGL game, but the 6600DDR2 edition would usually beat it.
Drivers actually weren't too bad according to the review, either. Only one game wouldn't run (AOE3 would run with messed up textures -- probably not assigning to SM2.0 correctly or something) and BF2 wouldn't run with AA on.
An article with good information and benchmarks:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/s3-chrome-s27.html