Ultra Fast, Ultra Expensive. Is it really worth it?
Written: Dec 01 '00 (Updated Dec 01 '00)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: PERFORMANCE!!!!!!!!
Cons: Price
|
|
|
| stevelarrison's Full Review: Elsa Gladiac Ultra |
Already leading the speed race in the graphics chipset industry with it's Geforce, last May, Nvidia expanded it's lead in the with the introduction of the Geforce 2 GTS chipset. (To see the basics of the Geforce 2 GTS chipset, read the following review : http://www.epinions.com/cmd-review-2206-12AF3B6D-39430913-prod1)
What is different about the Ultra?
Well, both the Geforce 2 GTS and the GTS Ultra use the same graphic chipset. The biggest differences are memory related, although Nvidia has chosen to clock the processor at a slightly faster speed. The standard Geforce 2 GTS comes with 32MB of video RAM (although 64MB is also available) whereas the Ultra has 64MB of RAM. The processor in the Geforce 2 GTS is clocked at 200MHz vs 250MHz in the Ultra. And the video RAM is clocked at 166MHz DDR (effective speed 333MHz) in the Geforce 2 GTS vs 230MHz DDR (effective speed 460MHz) in the Geforce 2 Ultra.
I assume it is going to be somewhat faster, but is it anything to get excited about?
From the moment that it was released, overclockers new what the next inner generation video card had in store for us. From tweaking the hardware, it quickly became apparent that, although the standard Geforce 2 GTS chipset is the fastest available for gaming today, the graphics chipsets performance is severely restricted by memory bandwidth. In overclocking experiments, you will notice next to no performance gain in the Geforce when you overclock the processor from 200MHz to 250MHz. But if you overclock the memory from 166MHz to 200MHz, you can gain about a 33% performance increase at high resolution/32 bit color settings. The extra 30MHz that the stock speed memory on an Ultra runs at versuses a highly overclocked Geforce 2 results in incredible differences in performance when playing games at high resolution settings.
For example, at 1024x768 settings, a Geforce 2 Ultra benchmarking Quake III can be expected to outperform a Geforce 2 by about 25%. At 1280x1024 resolution, the Ultra can outperform the Geforce 2 by about 50%. At 1600x1200, the Ultra almost doubles the speed of the standard Geforce 2 in the same system.
Is the Ultra the right card for me?
That depends on who you are, but the answer is probably no. This is strictly related to price as the Ultra cards go for around $500, vs about $220 for a Geforce 2. The Ultra is best suited for people with powerful machines (800MHz +). In addition, any potential Ultra owner should have more than just a passing interest in video games. Also, since the performance difference is most pronounced at high resolutions, people who own 17" or smaller monitors will not get their moneys worth from the Ultra. You should also keep in mind that there is a new generation of graphics chipset coming from Nvidia in the February time frame.
If all that doesn't bother you, then I think you will find the Elsa Gladiac Ultra to be a very good choice. Elsa has long enjoyed a reputation for producing high quality components. In addition to the basic graphics card, you get the 3d glasses included, and a Video Input Video Output module is available for an additional $40.
Recommended:
No
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
stevelarrison
|
 - Top 500 |
|
Member: Steve Larrison
Location: Scottsdale, Az. USA
Reviews written: 171
Trusted by: 198 members
About Me:
Beer, the answer to, and the cause of all life's problems.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.