logo
wwwsharky
quicksearch


start menu
Home
Forum
PC Buyers
CPU Prices
RAM Prices
Compare Prices
About Us
spacer
bend
Sharky Extreme : Video cards February 9, 2012
bend
spacer
Get the latest reviews and tutorials!
Register for the free
Hardware Daily Newsletter!




 - Most Active Threads
 - Technical Support
 - CPUs & Overclocking



RSS feed










Video cards

spacer  

Not Just a Speed Demon: MSI GeForce3 TI 500 Pro-VTG Review

By Joel Hruska :  January 23, 2002

Max Payne: 1024x768x32, All Details Max

CardScore
MSI Pro-VTG58
GeForce351
RADEON 850050.5

Because Max Payne's benchmark mode relies on user input to stop the test rather than an automatic shut-off point, it introduces a small level of human error that must be corrected for. All tests were run three times and averaged.

In Max Payne we see the GF3 TI 500 pull ahead again by about 13% over the original GF3. We were curious whether or not the Radeon 8500 would pull ahead of the GF 3 Ti 500-the "Lobby" test in 3DMark 2001 is built on the same engine as Max Payne and the R8500 had demonstrated tremendous potential there. But it ended up slightly trailing the legacy GeForce3, though only by half a frame.

Serious Sam: "Valley of the Kings" Demo, 1024x768x32, Quality Settings

CardScore
MSI Pro-VTG127
GeForce3114
RADEON 8500117

Serious Sam is a relatively recent game that appears poised to replace Quake 3: Arena as the OpenGL benchmark of choice. Serious Sam is a fast-paced first-person shooter with an emphasis on gorgeous visuals, huge open spaces (populated with hundreds of enemies) and lightning fast gameplay. In this benchmark we see the same story repeated again. The reference board is running about 11% slower than the MSI Pro-VTG, with the Radeon cutting that gap to about 5%.


Page 1

Introduction

Page 2

Multi-Faceted Multimedia and Safe BIOS

Page 3

Bundled Software

Page 4

Test Settings

Page 5

3DMark 2000 and 3DMark 2001 Performance

Page 6

Quake 3 Arena Performance

  • Page 7

    Max Payne and Serious Sam Performance

    Page 8

    Conclusion and Ratings