With the launch of the GeForce2 Ultra, nVidia seems to distance itself even further from the competition, both in price and performance. This review takes a look at how well the Elsa Gladiac Ultra stacks up to the other flavors of GeForce, including the GeForce DDR, MX and GTS.
I think that this is a fast card, but we have yet to see image quality. This being a real problem with other nVidia chips. I think that ATI has a few tricks up its sleeve and am interested in the next two versions of the radeon. As for 3dfx, they should start making more practical and faster boards. They need to start using faster memory and use less than two or four GPUs per card. 3dfx already lags in fps, againt the Geforces. If they want to be around in the next couple of years, they should start working on something that is competitive.
Or else it is a two man show-- ATI and nVidia
[This message has been edited by stunt (edited 10-18-2000).]
Whilst we are on the subject of nVidia, I would to comment on the recent nVidia driver put fwd - Detonator 3. I three nVidia cards:
1. Asus GForce MX 2. MSI Star MX and a Cardex TNT 2. I have loaded the three cards with this new driver but I do not see much change in the performance. Have I left something out? Please advise.
For $500-550 i really dont think its worth it. ATi Radeon is $200 and is about the same thing with 30m poly/sec and the ULTRA having 31.25m poly/sec. They both have 64MB DDR , but Radeon has only has 400MHz of DDR , and Ultra has 460MHz. Not that big a deal. But Im getting a Radeon 64MB DDR and waiting for the Radeon MAXX with Dual processors and running at 60m poly/sec and fill-rate at 3gigatexels. The 3D prophet 2 ULTRA is a great card but I dont wana spend $500 on it.