Ok, Ok, thumbs up for Nvidia...

[Nuno]

They finally managed to beat a $150 video card!!!



GF3 review at www.anandtech.com

Oooops... maybe they didn´t after all



[This message has been edited by Nuno (edited 22 March 2001).]

[Pace]

[Wulfman]

would be even better with T&L...

[Wombat]

What I find more interesting is the case where the GF3 loses to the GF2u

[Nuno]

Double ooops

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">One final note which may be cause for concern. I could only run the GeForce3 at a 105MHz front side bus speed unlike the 120MHz I could use on the GeForce2 Ultra. This may be an isolated incident or the AGP timing running close to specifications may be of critical importance to the GeForce3</font>

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/geforce3/quake3.shtml

[bongo]

what the hell is "Kyroll"?

[Greebe]

That's "Kyro II" there Bongo

[Nuno]

Kyro I I is the paradigm about "work smarter, not harder".

Take a look at http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1435

[DosFreak]

The GF3 is not clocked higher it's just more optimized. Has more features + optimized for FSAA. So yes if you do not use FSAA or EMBM or pixel shaders then the GF2 GTS/GF2 Ultra is fine for ya. But if you like to play in 4x fsaa or that new quintuple or whatever the heck it's called FSAA then the GF3 is for you.

[Rags]

Hmmmmm....let's see 500 bucks to get 4XAA....NOT!

Rags

[DuRaNgO]

Gee, Didn't I hear 7x faster? BAHAHAHA!
lol

[This message has been edited by DuRaNgO (edited 23 March 2001).]

[dZeus]

not only that, but I thought that the GF3 was also all about HSR, and I expected that de performance with it enabled would increase at least as much as it did on the V5-5500.

[alessandro]

And ofcource he doesn't use 3DMark 2001(that use dx8) because he don't like the idea of Radeons getting better scores than GF2's

[[GDI]Raptor]

Hmmmm........
Thats definitivly NOT worth 500$

------------------
- [GDI]Raptor