CL TNT (1) really as bad compared to the otherones as people say?
Home | Reviews and Features | Special Reports | Forums |

Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: CL TNT (1) really as bad compared to the otherones as people say?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 1998
    Posts
    101

    CL TNT (1) really as bad compared to the otherones as people say?

    The Creative Labs Graphics Blaster TNT (1) is the cheapest TNT card I can find. Reviews Ive read say its never better than "average", but I know from the discussion forums, that those people who have it - love it...
    How much is it slower than the other TNT cards?

    Thanx for replies!

  2. #2
    ankerson Guest
    The CL card is OK, but one of the others is better. Get the V550 or the STB Vel 4400, they are much better.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 1998
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta CANADA
    Posts
    1,289
    Actually, what you heard is BS.

    I have a bud with a Celeron 300a @ 464mhz, Asus P2B, 192mb of ram, a fast HDD, and an Asus 3400 AGP TNT card, which is supposed to be the fastest.

    Ok, I have a Celeron 300a @ 450mhz, Abit BH6, 128mb of ram, a slower HDD and a CL AGP TNT.

    On every q2 benchmark that we have checked, I score 2-5fps faster than he does. Even when both of us did a fresh install of q2 with the latest Detonator drivers, I was still getting 2-5fps faster on the benchmarks, and some were even faster. Both of us upped our core clock speed to 110 and memory speeds to 120, and I was STILL going the same amount faster than him. I think he is on a crusade now, trying to catch up, neither of us knows why, but its the way it is.

    Just go out and buy the cheapest card that has the features you want, dont pay attention to the reviews.

    Oh, and with the latest v1.88 drivers, and my card overclocked to 110/120, it is now playable smooth online in 1024x768 in 32bit color in quake2. Which, BTW, looks awesome.

    Quake2 Demo1 at 1024x768 scores:
    50fps in 16bit
    36fps in 32bit

    Quake2 Crusher at 1024x768 scores:
    40fps in 16bit
    28fps in 32bit.

    (all of those scores are with 110/120 clock speeds)

    ------------------
    Collin J
    Moderator: Support and General discussion.

    Sometimes I wonder...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Posts
    182
    Have your friend look at his memory. He might have a mix of CAS 2 and 3 or brand name and generic. He should run the test with the brand name CAS 2 or just one 128 SDRAMM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 1998
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta CANADA
    Posts
    1,289
    That definetly wont make a difference. I have 2 64mb dimms, one cas2 one cas3. One is a generic w/siemens chips, the other is a Fujitsu w/micron chips. I think he is using all micron memory, cas2. I was beating his numbers when I only had 64mb of memory in my system.

    Just because a web site says one thing, doesnt mean its going to hold true for every one of them. The web sites that do the reviews only review one card, at most 2. Not all of them will be the same. I have another bud with a very similar setup to mine and a CL TNT and he is getting 2-4fps faster than I am.

    ------------------
    Collin J
    Moderator: Support and General discussion.

    Sometimes I wonder...

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
  •