Heres one......

[LAMFDTK]

Summary

Well, if you’re out in the market for a fast card that outperforms an Ultra TNT2, then the Creative GeForce does deliver - at 16-bit AT LEAST. However, it seems indicative that memory bandwidth is indeed the bottleneck for the card now. Perhaps with the 64MB variants, DDRAM will be used instead and this may be circumvented.
With the low overclockability of the inbuilt memory, retrospectively I may have waited till another manufacturer comes out with a more overclocking-friendly memory with better mem rating.
In any case, this card is still plenty fast for Quake III at 16-bit and I think most people will be satisfied with the speed increase, bearing in mind the premature drivers…

This line is even funnier,
"In any case, there are rumours of a new set of drivers to be released shortly that promises to double (fingers-crossed) the performance…"

Take a look here ..<A HREF="http://www.hardware-one.com/reviews/clgeforce/">Hardware one G-force review</A>

[Ozymandis]

I read the review. I am somewhat disappointed, but I will get one for my second pc, a p2-266@300. I will run it in my regular machine to run some benchmarks, so hopefully people can see how it really performs. I really don't trust a lot of hardware sites. My G400max runs all Opengl games at great speed, unlike the trash I've heard.

[The Rock]

I read the same review, and as far as reviews go, that one sucked hard. The fool who reviewed the GeForce overclocked it and tested it in an overclocked system. Now THERE'S a good review. What a fool. I was curious to see how it performs at standard settings in a non-OC'ed rig.

The Rock
"Discourage incest - ban country music NOW."

[Himself]

Yep, being able to read 256 bits of data per clock (128 bit but able to be access on rising and falling edges of the clock) is going to be a great help with 32 bit on the G256, it means it's 4 engines can be filled every clock cycle in 32 bit mode as well as 16 bit mode, instead of 40 fps in 1024x768x32 bit, you'll see closer to the 60 fps in 16 bit mode. $350 though sounds a tad steep.

Overclocks 20% to 143MHz but gets real hot, doesn't seem worth it, might as well wait for a the Savage 2000 and overclock that. I know that 128 bit ram is going to go a lot farther at 175MHz before overclocking than it will at 143MHz after overclocking. Likely to be cheap as well.

A more interesting read is the irc chat log here:
http://216.71.163.115/subpages/features/nvchat/

Few sidesteps, for example, when asked about trilinear being real/free or not, the answer was that it does the same thing that the TNT 2 can do (8 tap anisotropic), just twice as fast. Other interesting bits like mention of new techniques for squeezing the most out of 128 bit ram.

Very convincing stuff, almost made ME interested in the card. Fortunately, the sight of the Creative drivers control panel brought me back to earth by reminding me of the drivers.

[Frank]

I couldn't agree with you any more Ozy.
I am tired of reading reviews of the 'slow' performance of the Gl drivers for the G400.
Man I can play all my quake/II engine games in opengl at the highest resolutions no problems with very acceptable frame rates.
I haven't been able to understand what their problem is. Maybe its their comparisons to more developed drivers from Nvidia for the TNT2 Ultra. They keep making it sound like G400 is a bad choice.
They misinform the easily influenced who only look at numbers and disregard gameplay.