GeForce 2 GTS has left a mixed kind of impression on me. On the one hand, it's clearly the fastest 3D chip out there right now and it will remain for quite a while. Buying 3D cards with GeForce 2 won't be a mistake. It's got all that you need, high pixel and texel fill rate, integrated T&L, the fancy shading engine, HDTV support (which I did not even mention in the review to keep it from becoming my new book), .... However, if you are the owner of a GeForce card, don't start scraping all your money together so that you can afford the $300-350 for a 32 MB GeForce 2 GTS card. The benchmark results showed you how few applications offer a meaningful improvement from switching from GeForce to GeForce 2 GTS.[break]Hij heeft ook nog wat nuttige benchmarks gemaakt waar je kan zien hoe de kaart scaled met verschillende CPU's. De conclusie is simpel, je hebt geen 1 Ghz CPU nodig voor deze kaart aangezien de Celeron 600 op 1152x864 evenveel FPS haalt als de Athlon 1 Ghz:[/break]You can see that Athlon actually overtakes Pentium III in Quake 3 Arena and Celeron 600 is perfectly fine with GeForce 2 as well. At 1600x1200 all CPU score the same results, because at this resolution fill rate is the bottleneck.
If you should have wondered at which resolution the impact of GeForce2's memory bandwidth limitation kicks in, here is the answer. Latest at 1152x864x32 its memory problem toys with GeForce 2 GTS. Is that sad or what?