Is this what you were expecting?

[LAMFDTK]

Amidst the dozens of slides that NVIDIA showed - there was one Quake 3 benchmark. No mention was made of what exactly the test system was, only that it was compared to the TNT2 Ultra. At "16x12x16" (which we assume means 1600x1200x16bit color), GeForce 256 gets 33.1 frames per second while the TNT2 Ultra is about half as fast at 17.5 frames per second. Why such a modest increase? Well, Quake 3 isn't a high poly game, so it's not going to show the kind of dramatic increase over the TNT2 Ultra as it would if it was tweaked with tons of polys. The fill rate alone is what's really driving these numbers - meanwhile, the powerful geometry engine on the GeForce256 is probably trying to stifle a yawn.

So much for amazing FPS. This was a little surprising. It still is impressive. I am not knocking the Geeeefource, I'll probably own one.
Is'nt "GeFource" a bad saturday morning cartoon? Maby Matrox can release a "Space Ghost500" or a "Scooby650"

------------------
PIII-450, 128 HDSRAM, Asus P3BF, G400/32, SBLive!, Nokia 447Xi 17",

[Micko]

But what about G400 drivers 40% increase in OGL games...

[Nuno]

So much for hi-res performance with the GeForce. It has only 480 Mtexel/s fill rate. Heck, my G400 has 300 (or 333, assuming it is running at max speeds and matrox states 333 MTex/s for the Max).

So we can Expect 500fps in 640x480, but it is fill-rate limited in hi-res. That´s why 3dfx stated V4 will be faster than NV10. They are promising 1600 Mtex/s.

NVidia is again in trouble with their yelds. They promised .18u parts and they couldn´t deliver. So it is running at 120Mhz (pathetic).