Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

G400 vs. TNT2 Ultra = [b]HUGE[/b] difference

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    G400 vs. TNT2 Ultra = [b]HUGE[/b] difference

    Hey, I was on campus today at UCLA (UCLA Rocks!!!) and at the main arcade, they are running a server and a lot of computers for games. They are using a TNT2U and it absolutely looks like hell!!! I just thought I'd point this out. I'd take a G400 (working one of course ) over that even if they paid ME!!! My humble opinion in case anyone was wondering.

    Dimitri

    P.S.: To anyone who likes TNT2's, this is not ment to open a flame session (but check your eyes).

    P.P.S.: Ok, apperantly those ubb codes don't work in the titles....

    [This message has been edited by Muad'Dib (edited 28 January 2000).]
    "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: His eyes are closed"
    --- Albert Einstein


    "Drag racing is for people that don't know how to brake and downshift at the same time."
    Tags: None
  • #2
    This is an interesting post, because i have a p2-400mhz/wG400 and my friend has a Cellery-400mhz/wTNT2 ULTRA. I am very happy with my G400, but I was just as impressed with his higher clocked TNT2 ultra.

    I think these two cards both look great, and they both pound the poop out of those 16-bit voopoo's, but the dualhead option is the camel that breaks the straws back. Id take a G400, thank you, but if my friend has the same P2 i did i think his performance would be better than mine...

    All im saying is the TNT's are very nice, and not as bad as you say, but the image quality on a G400 is slightly better, the performance will soon be better (those 5.5 betas will soon go gold), and the options can't be beat. Too bad the matrox doesnt have a very good core speed...the TNT ships at 175!!! The matrox memory speed makes up for it though, at a startling 200.

    If you want to see something that looks dog-ass bad that has no place on a high-end machine, look at one of the 3dfx cards. Jeez, talk about shitty image quality. If you have a p3/athlon you wont notice a difference in performance between the three, you'd just be wondering why you were sacrifing all that image quality for 0.1 fps gain.

    Comment

    • #3
      The spec speed of the TNT2 Ultra is 150 MHz, just like the Max. NVidia, as is their way, overstated the specs of the board when they announced it last year. *Only* Hercules and Guillemot shipped Ultras at 175 MHz, Hercules went bankrupt, and Guillemot eventually bought them.

      I have both a Max and a Guillemot TNT2U. In most situations, using fast processors, the Max is faster, despite the TNT2 chip's higher clock speed.

      Paul
      paulcs@flashcom.net

      Comment

      • #4
        Who wouldnt get a Guellmont TNT2 ultra? That would be just stupid. Friend of mine got it cuase Hercules went out of biz the day he went to buy one.

        175/183 OUT OF THE BOX that's goddamn fast. You can get it to 200/220 with some extra cooling, and that's awesomely fast.

        Still prefer matrox, especially after using the 5.5 betas.

        Comment

        • #5
          It may be fast, but I don't think it looks too good. I saw the school trying to run it in 32bit color and it wasn't too good (again, in my opinion). I don't know what the rest of the systems are though. I mean, it doesn't matter the card if you have like 16 megs ram and a 200 mhz processor... It wasn't THAT bad though.
          "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: His eyes are closed"
          --- Albert Einstein


          "Drag racing is for people that don't know how to brake and downshift at the same time."

          Comment

          • #6
            Maybe the "system admins" did'nt set up the game/hardware properly?? I like the G2/400 image quality better myself, hence my last 2 cards were the aforementioned, but the tnt/2/u also looks more than exceptable, so I suspect summat is the matter.

            ------------------
            AsusP2B ,iCeleron525(7x75), 128megs PC100, G40032megSH, Yamaha PCI sound, 2 small HD's, 42X Sony CDrom and 98SE w/shutdown patch, PD 5.41 w/Turbo MCD and beta ICD

            AMD XP2100+, 512megs DDR333, ATI Radeon 8500, some other stuff.

            Comment

            • #7
              I'm tellin' ya, the Max, given the right conditions, is faster. For about two weeks, the Max was the fastest board on the planet.

              Paul
              paulcs@flashcom.net

              Comment

              Previous template Next
              Working...
              X