Ga'ash van AnandTech heeft een review van de 16Mb SGRAM TNT van Elsa. Ondanks het in theorie snellere SGRAM op de Erazor II is het ding niet sneller dan vergelijkbare SDRAM TNT's (dat wisten we ook al uit o.a. de reviews op THG):
The Erazor II performs slower than the reference TNT used in this test. In reality; however, the difference is not noticeable. [...] The addition of SGRAM did not seem to make a difference in the performance of the ELSA board; however, as soon as more bandwidth intensive games are released, we may see a benefit for SGRAM. SGRAM also supposedly increases 2D performance at higher resolutions. Considering that most cards can blit the screen (even at 1600x1200x32) fast enough for anyone's eyes; 2D performance is not an issue anymore.
Ga'ash heeft ook wat info over de 32-bits rendering van de TNT vs die van de ATI Rage 128 (en waarom de Rage sneller is):
I have heard many people express concerns regarding the 32bit performance of the TNT after seeing the stellar 32bit performance of the Rage 128. Since both of these cards render 32bits internally anyway (I believe), the only difference between outputting at 16bits of 32bits is bandwidth. The Rage 128 reduces Z-buffer depth to 16bits when rendering 32bit color; while the TNT does exactly the opposite, raise the Z-buffer from 16bits (as it is in Quake2, I believe it can be configured for 24bits @ 16bit color) to 24bits. Doing the math, the bandwidth requirements per pixel with the TNT is 32+24 = 56bits, while the Rage 128 does an entire 32bit pixel using 48bits of bandwidth. This is a major reason why the Rage 128 is faster than the TNT at 32bit color.