Home

News

Forums

Hardware

CPUs

Mainboards

Video

Guides

CPU Prices

Memory Prices

Shop



Sharky Extreme :


Latest News


- Crucial Triples Up With New Three-Channel DDR3 Kits
- OCZ Adds Three New Fatal1ty Power Supplies
- BFG Offers Free AGP to PCI Express Upgrade
- Kanguru's e-Flash Makes the Jump to USB and eSATA
- Gateway Launches New Core i7-powered FX-Series Gaming PCs
News Archives

Features

- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Microsoft's Dan Odell
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with ATI's Terry Makedon
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Seagate's Joni Clark
- Half-Life 2 Review
- DOOM 3 Review

Buyer's Guides

- November Value Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- September Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- July High-end Gaming PC Buyer's Guide

HARDWARE

  • CPUs

    - Intel Core i7-965 XE & Core i7-920 Review

  • Motherboards

    - Intel DX48BT2 (X48) Motherboard Review
    - AMD 790GX Chipset Review
    - Gigabyte GA-MA790FX-DS5 Motherboard Review
    - AMD 780G Chipset Review

  • Video Cards





  • While the 3D Prophet's D3D performance is still superior to the TNT2 Ultra's with one exception (P3 600 @ 1600 x 1200 x 32-bit), the Falcon SE board often comes close and even surpasses the 3D Prophet at high resolution in 32-bit on the Athlon and Pentium III.

    Until proven otherwise, we continue to attribute this to the lack of DirectX 7 hardware T&L implementation in Expendable (where we agree that most of the performance gain is coming from in the OpenGL applications), the core and memory speed tradeoffs associated with the new architecture and possibly the early nature of the D3D drivers.

    The chaotic nature of these results makes it difficult to draw clear conclusions, but here goes: The Athlon 650 shows fairly consistent increases in performance percentage from the 3D Prophet at both 16- and 32-bit. The P3 600 and Celeron show marked improvement at higher resolution in 16-bit but mixed results in 32-bit. The Celeron comes out tops in performance percentage increase at 32-bit while the P3 plummets to below the performance of the TNT2 Ultra by 7% at 1600 x 1200 x 32.





    Copyright © 2002 INT Media Group, Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. About INT Media Group | Press Releases | Privacy Policy | Career Opportunities