NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS Battle Royal

Contestants Overview

Here is a table to compare some of the major features.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Header Cell - Column 0 MemoryCoolingVideoSoftware DVD player
AOpen PA256 Pro32 MBs of 6ns Infineon DDR at 333 MHzStandardVideo-outNo
ELSA Gladiac32 MBs of 6ns Infineon DDR at 333 MHzStandardOptionalYes *
Leadtek WFGF232 MBs of 6ns Infineon DDR at 333 MHzExcellentVideo-outYes

* Not in retail box but can be requested through technical support.

Performance - Test Setup

Swipe to scroll horizontally
i840 Configuration
CPUIntel PIII 866
Motherboard (BIOS rev.)OR840Intel OR840 (BIOS OR840700.86E.0219.803.0003081415)
Memory2 Modules of 128 MB 800 MHz RDRAM
NetworkNetgear FA310TX
i440BX Configuration
CPUIntel PIII 600E @ 800 MHz
Motherboard (BIOS rev.)MS BX Master (BIOS 5.1 031400)
Memory1 Module of 128 MB Crucial PC133 CAS2 SDRAM
NetworkNetgear FA310TX
Driver Information
AOpen PA256 Pro4.12.01.0516
ELSA Gladiac4.12.01.0200-0020
Reference GeForce 256 DDR4.12.01.0516
Leadtek WFGF24.12.01.0516
Environment Settings
OS VersionWindows 98 SE 4.10.2222 A
DirectX Version7
Quake 3 ArenaRetail versioncommand line = +set cd_nocd 1 +set s_initsound 0
ShogoV2.14Advanced Settings = disable sound, disable music, disable movies, disable joysticks,enable optimized surfaces, enable triple buffering, enable single-pass multi-texturingHigh Detail Settings = enabledFortress Demo
3DMark 200016-bit settings = 16 bit textures, 16-bit Z-buffer, triple buffering32-bit settings = 32-bit textures, 24-bit Z-buffer, triple bufferingAll test were done with high detail only.

Test Expectations

Seeing as most of the boards are based on the NVIDIA 5.16 driver, I don't expect to see much of a performance difference. Aside from vsync I've left all the default settings alone to represent what most people will see. This means fast writes are on and no other changes were made to tweak the visuals. I did also compare default settings of each manufacturer and found no major differences. Layout differences typically give more stability benefit than raw performance unless there is a major change to the design. I expect our scores to be very close among the competing boards.

Test Results - Shogo

At this low resolution the benchmark is much more CPU dependant although we do see the GeForce2 based cards pull slightly ahead of the older GeForce reference card.

Lifting the resolution upwards begins to show the fill-rate advantage of the GeForce2 based cards. All the GeForce2 cards are basically tied.

At this high resolution and in 16-bit color the GeForce2 boards take a nice lead over the older GeForce board but still score right next to each other.