beating sharkys at there own game.
Home | Reviews and Features | Special Reports | Forums |

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: beating sharkys at there own game.

  1. #1
    DEANRIL Guest

    beating sharkys at there own game.



    Here is about a month ago at sharkys testing a voodoo3 3500,using a pIII 500 128m pc100,the v3 clearly beats the o/c TNT ULTRA across the board.










    Heres the recent one done with the TNT2 ultra by Herc @ 175/200 and another Herc o/c by Sharkys @ 195/240.
    They felt the need to o/c the Herc and run the V3 3000 stock.........Why?????I feel this is more accurate using a TNT2 ULTRA @195/240 against a v3 3500 @ 220.IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR, AT 190 the v3 beats the o/c TNT2 ULTRA across the board.As for 190 and up, well.. And all these benches come from Sharkeys but they failed to publish them together.I felt the need to do so ,so I published them together for them. The bottom 3 benches were on a slot 1 with 256megs of PC133 ram and they failed to mention the cpu speed,but the 133mhz ram can only go with one type of cpu PIII 500 or 550mhz.

    Its plain and simple the V3 3500 produces higher(much)frames per second.Then the HERC TNT2 w/32 megs of ram.......
    There isnt even a glide bench here like Unreal using glide (V3) and d3d(TNT2). which all benches in this type of comparison should be done.




    [This message has been edited by DEANRIL (edited 05-16-99).]

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Location
    Grand Haven, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    11,332
    Yah you know very few boards will do a reveiw without having a favorite going into the benchmarks. They then publish the test results that "look" the best (assuming the numbers are too to began with). Just look at Tom's Hardware.
    AMD Phenom II x4 945 3Ghz | ASUS M4A77TD | 2X WD 1TB SATA 2 hard drive | 2x2GB Corsair XMS3 | nVidia GeForce 8800 GTS | ATI TV Wonder Theater Pro 550 | Antec P-160 case | Antec 650w Earth Watts | LG Blu-ray Super Drive | LG DVD RW | Windows 7 Pro

  3. #3
    DEANRIL Guest
    Yeah the favorite here is obvious,putting a TNT2 ultra at 175/200 against a v3 3000 at 166,is fine by me.BUT to o/c the TNT@ ultra to 195/240 and Bash the v3 3000 for not performing better is BIASED.


    If they wanted to do this situation right they should have atleast o/c the v3 to like 180 or so I have had mine at 183 stable.Then their bashing might have made sense.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5
    Well at the Firing Squad, they did a review of the Hercules and guess what, they have a Voodoo 3 3000 regular AND overclocked and it's pretty close to what Sharky's had if not a bit low but, the Hercules looks like it still came on top:

    http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/dynamiteultra/

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    128
    you are talking about something the eye will not even notice between cards... jesus you lot... GET OUT MORE... go and have a beer or get laid.
    simonf@panormania.com
    www.panormania.com

    "I know what your thinking.... should have took the blue pill"

  6. #6
    DEANRIL Guest
    obviously anything over 30fps you cant see,but thats not the POINT.The point is they are saying the TNT2 ultra o/c and stock beats any voodoo3.My point is simple............NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. #7
    DEANRIL Guest
    Gunpramaster ,I was wondering where the TNT2 ULTRA came out on top?This is from the web site you specified.Now this is a accurate review and bench.Except for one thing ,no glide comparison.

    This is from the FIRING SQUAD hardware page,it shows one nice thing too,no matter which cpu 500mhz or 400mhz the voodoo3 is still the best performing card.And we all know from 400mhz and below the v3 is the best performing card there aswell.

    Quake 2, Demo 1 800x600x16
    Processor, Video Card, & Video Card's Core/Memory Speed (for TNT2) FPS
    PIII 500, Voodoo3 3000 (183) 127.4
    PIII 500, Voodoo3 3000 (166) 123.9
    PIII 500, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (190/230) 109.2
    Celeron 466, Voodoo3 3000 (183) 109.1
    Celeron 466, Voodoo3 3000 (166) 107.5
    PIII 500, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (175/200) 103.1
    Celeron 400, Voodoo3 3000 (183) 97.9
    Celeron 400, Voodoo3 3000 (166) 96.7
    Celeron 466, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (190/230) 94.2
    Celeron 466, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (175/200) 93.0
    Celeron 400, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (190/230) 84.4
    Celeron 400, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (175/200) 83.8
    Celeron 400, Voodoo3 3000 (183) 78.6
    Celeron 400, Voodoo3 3000 (166) 78.4
    Celeron 400, TNT

    Quake 2, Crusher 800x600x16
    Processor, Video Card, & Video Card's Core/Memory Speed (for TNT2) FPS
    PIII 500, Voodoo3 3000 (183) 57.1
    PIII 500, Voodoo3 3000 (166) 56.3
    PIII 500, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (190/230) 55.3
    PIII 500, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (175/200) 55.1
    Celeron 466, Voodoo3 3000 (183) 50.4
    Celeron 466, Voodoo3 3000 (166) 50.2
    Celeron 466, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (190/230) 47.2
    Celeron 466, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (175/200) 46.9
    Celeron 400, Voodoo3 3000 (183) 44.1
    Celeron 400, Voodoo3 3000 (166) 43.8
    Celeron 400, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (190/230) 42.3
    Celeron 400, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (175/200) 41.7
    Celeron 400, TNT




    Quake 2, Demo 1 1024x768x16
    Processor, Video Card, & Video Card's Core/Memory Speed (for TNT2) FPS
    PIII 500, Voodoo3 3000 (183) 97.8
    Celeron 466, Voodoo3 3000 (183) 95.0
    Celeron 400, Voodoo3 3000 (183) 89.9
    PIII 500, Voodoo3 3000 (166) 89.6
    Celeron 466, Voodoo3 3000 (166) 88.6
    PIII 500, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (190/230) 86.3
    Celeron 400, Voodoo3 3000 (166) 85.7
    PIII 500, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (175/200) 84.8
    Celeron 466, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (190/230) 81.9
    Celeron 466, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (175/200) 80.8
    Celeron 400, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (190/230) 76.3
    Celeron 400, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (175/200) 70.7
    Celeron 400, TNT 35.7


    Quake 2, Crusher 1024x768x16
    Processor, Video Card, & Video Card's Core/Memory Speed (for TNT2) FPS
    PIII 500, Voodoo3 3000 (183) 56.6
    PIII 500, Voodoo3 3000 (166) 55.4
    PIII 500, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (190/230) 54.5
    PIII 500, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (175/200) 53.0
    Celeron 466, Voodoo3 3000 (183) 50.1
    Celeron 466, Voodoo3 3000 (166) 49.7
    Celeron 466, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (190/230) 46.8
    Celeron 466, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (175/200) 46.0
    Celeron 400, Voodoo3 3000 (183) 44.6
    Celeron 400, Voodoo3 3000 (166) 44.2
    Celeron 400, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (190/230) 41.8
    Celeron 400, Dynamite TNT2 Ultra (175/200) 41.4
    Celeron 400, TNT 31.6





    [This message has been edited by DEANRIL (edited 05-17-99).]

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5
    Heh, my mistake, I guess I was infected by "TOM'sHardwareitis"! But hey, I like the Hercules and probably gonna get it!=) Enjoy your Voodoo 3! I personal think that enjoying your own piece of heaven is what counts! So love your V3, I'll love my TNT2 Sorry about the mix up.

  9. #9
    DEANRIL Guest
    N/P GUNPRAMASTER,like you said enjoy.Let us know how you like your tnt2 ultra ok.Have fun

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    2
    Look DEANRIL I think that people are getting sick of this comparison (I know I am). The Voodoo 3 is fast, but it is not in the same league as the TNT2. I would buy a Voodoo3 but after seeing all the areas were it lacks it is clear that the TNT2 is a better buy.
    The Voodoo 3 still uses the small testure size, 16bit color, and does not use AGP 2X or 4X to any effect.
    Use your Voodoo and get as many frames per seconed as you like, as long as I get over 30 fps and GOOD image quality I am happy with my card.
    Now lets end these pointless threads.
    Nick

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    12
    You're all talking about fps but
    I've seen a picture which clearly shows
    the TNT chipset produces more sharp images
    then the V3. One thing is for sure :
    the DVD playback of the V3 is better than
    the DVD of the TNT2 and 3dfx was the first
    to produce (stable) drivers with 3Dnow-
    support

    I have a viper550 and I wait till fall
    before bying a new card, I hope the next
    generation shows up then : 64 MB Ram,
    texture compression, hardware DVD playback,
    TV-in, out, FlatPanelSupport, fillrate
    of 600 to 800 Mtexels, suppport for 3D-
    glasses, drivers for Win2000,Win95/98,
    Linux, DirectX7, ....
    I will join the conference about timetraveling that will be held 14 days ago

  12. #12
    DEANRIL Guest
    Ok,NIXS,

    1.You dont have to come in here.Nobody is making you.

    2.Its 22bit,not 16bit


    3.You will not achieve high fps in your all mighty 32bit.So then what?back to 16 bit you go.


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Arlington,Texas
    Posts
    288
    I got voodoo3 3000 and it look good image than tom image.When tom show picture of quake2 not same as my image so my image quake2 look sharper and nothing dark in depth,it sharper edge.
    As long as i concern so i am not going to believe any of their like Tom or Anandtech or etc show thier picture of image.But i still like for them to keep post news from benchwork anyway.
    I test my v3 3000 on quake2 demo1 1024x768x16=81.2 fps on my p2 350 64 ram and gigabyte mb.
    thank smile

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    2
    I notice that you ignored my comment about the texture size!! Have you seen the benchmarks when the textures get bigger, the Voodoo3 drops down to an unplayable fps. For now games developers will still use the smaller textures, but in the future 16bit color (Oh Yeah 22bit ) and small texture sizes will not cut it.
    Nick

  15. #15
    DEANRIL Guest
    Good point nixs! And your right.But for myself I by the stupid cards every 6 months.(just another sucker).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •