TNT1 vs. G400

[DosFreak]

P3550@630 115mhz FSB X 5.5M
128m PC-100

FAKK 2 v1.01 DEMO

Matrox G400

5.11.017 NT5 Drivers w/ latest bios.

32bit
1152X864=21.0
1024X768=25.7
960X720=22.5
800X600=30.8
640X480=31.6


16bit
1152X864=27.4
1024X768=30.0
960X720=22.8
800X600=30.8
640X480=31.4

Diamond Viper V550 (TNT1)

5.32 NT5 Drivers w/ latest reference bios.

32bit
1152X864=10.5
1024X768=14.2
960X720=23.8
800X600=22.5
640X480=35.3

16bit
1152X864=18.4
1024X768=24.0
960X720=26.0
800X600=36.5
640X480=44.7


[This message has been edited by DosFreak (edited 14 August 2000).]

[Maggi]

Interesting comparison, DosFreak ...

Why are you that angry ?

Is it because the TNT is faster in low res ?

Looks like Matrox didn't focus on low res yet.

Cheers,
Maggi

[Brian R.]

Angry?

[Sisyfos]

He has got a point though.
What good are the faster FPS in the higher res, if it's too slow to be playable anyway?

(no not really, just agreeing somewhat with DosFreak )

------------------
Join the MURC SETI team!

View the exciting stats

[dZeus]

G400 scales more than TNT:

that means that you need a faster processor to have the same speed on lower resolution, but you can gain more FPS by having a much faster CPU. However, on the G400 only is much faster in lower resolution on a 800MHz + CPU than a TNT2/Ultra.

[DosFreak]

Nah I'm not angry! I just use the mad icon alot on 3dfiles because I like it.

I posted this because it's amazing how much drivers can do for hardware. I just downloaded the 6.18 reference drivers tonight so I'm gonna rebench with those.

[]Charly[]

Hi,
The best Detonator for a TNT1 grfxcard is the 2.08. no joke

cya
)Charly(

[Electric Amish]

The 6.18's won't be any help. Anand tested them on a TNT2 and it actually made the performance worse.

amish

[Brian R.]

Sorry - Missed the emoticon. Never look at them anyway unless they're in the message...