X-bit labs

Creative 3D Blaster Riva TNT2 Ultra Review

Category: Video

by FastSite

[ 06/20/1999 | 12:00 AM ]

It is a wonderful piece based on nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra chip. Well, it was a tangible blow for 3dfx threateningthe stability of its position in the market, that's why if you are a Voodoo3 admirer you'd better take some sedativesbeforehand and only then go and read the review.

Table of contents:

Time takes its natural course, and after nVidia Riva TNT2 based cards have shyly stepped intothe PC market, we witness the appearance of graphics cards on nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra. This chipsetis one of the fastest ones today, which can be compared only to 3dfx Voodoo3 3500. That's why thisreview is going to touch upon the speed parameters of nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra chipset as well as uponsome peculiarities of the graphics cards based on it.

Since winter we are still under the impression made by the first announcements of nVidia RivaTNT2 and TNT2 Ultra based graphics cards. Namely everyone was struck by the announced chipsetfeatures of Riva TNT2 Ultra as well as by the promised superhigh performance. Besides, the manufacturersnever doubted the ability of their new card to surpass 3dfx Voodoo3 3500 and promised that the cardwill be a bit cheaper than its main competitor.

The main differences between the Ultra-version and the ordinary Riva TNT2 lie in the processorworking frequency: 125MHz by nVidia Riva TNT2 and 150MHz by nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra. As a resulttheir fill rates will be also different: 250 and 300 mln pixels per second correspondingly. Andall the rest depends on a particular manufacturer and on the speed parameters of the graphicsmemory used in the card.

We benchmarked a Creative 3D Blaster Riva TNT2 Ultra graphics card.

As we see, Creative 3D Blaster Riva TNT2 Ultra can boast 32MB SDRAM in 16 microchips placedon both sides of the card, a special chip responsible for TV-out, and a BIOS microchip. Besides,there is a radiator with a cooler stuck to the chipset upper surface. And in general, the card isnot very big, which is actually quite untypical of Creative.

When we opened the colorful box, we found the card, of course, a CD-disk with the requiredsoftware, all the necessary documentation and an S-Video-Composite converter.

We tested this card in two different systems. The first one was configured as follows:

• Intel Pentium III 500MHz CPU
• ASUS P2B-B (Intel 440BX) mainboard
• 128MB PC100 system memory

And the second one:

• AMD K6-2 450MHz CPU
• Chaintech 5AGM2 (VIA MVP3) mainboard
• 128MB PC100 system memory

Both systems included a ViewSonic P810 (21") monitor and Windows 98.

The installation ran very smoothly and in general was very easy to carry out. All the softwarewas automatically installed from the CD-disk by means of Autorun command.

As it usually happens the drivers supplied together with the mainboard are based on a very oldreference (version 1.25) released in March. The set of properties, which coincide with the reference,includes Vsync, MIP-mapping and filtering features, etc. That's why we decided to take referencedrivers version 1.88 to test our Creative 3D Blaster Riva TNT2 Ultra.

Besides, we used a special NVSpeed v.1.09 utility released by Creative especially for its graphicscards and intended for chip and memory overclocking. The picture shows that there is a lot of room foroverclocking though the limits are not firmly fixed. In order to extend the limits you have to clickthe left upper pictogram with a clock, to chose the menu item Limits and over there you can changethe frequencies settings.

It is worth mentioning here that a number of utilities including TNTCLK 1.2 display thewrong frequencies. For instance, 260MHz frequency value showed by TNTCLK is in fact noneother than the ordinary 200MHz. Therefore we resorted to PowerStrip 2.50 together withNVSpeed v.1.09 in order to check the correctness of the frequencies displayed.

To finish with the installation of Creative 3D Blaster Riva TNT2 Ultra we would like to notethat all benchmarks were run with nVidia drivers version 1.88, BIOS version 2.05.2.11 dated backto 5 May, 1999. After several tries we managed to overclock the card to the maximum level stillproviding stable and reliable performance - to 183MHz chipset and 220MHz memory frequency. If youremember, the default frequency settings are 150 and 183MHz correspondingly. That is why we ranall the benchmarks twice: in the nominal regime and for the card overclocked to its maximum.

We would like to start with 2D-graphics, of course. Here we ran WinBench 99 at the resolutionequal to 1600x1200 in 32-bit color regime (with Intel Pentium III 500MHz CPU), which provided uswith the following results:

The picture we see is a sight for sore eyes: the graphics card on nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra chiphas gained the lead. Besides, this card is also running the show among all other nVidia Riva TNT2based cards. Well, it is all very exciting, but what about the quality? As we know, the imagequality in 2D has always been a weak point of nVidia Riva TNT2 based graphics cards. But, hereis another surprise! Creative 3D Blaster Riva TNT2 Ultra proved to be just perfect in 2D. Weare now writing this review on the PC with this particular graphics card working at the1280x1024x32 (85Hz) resolution, and there is practically no blurring. As well as at 1600x1200:absolutely no blurring! Seems pretty strange for a gaming card, doesn't it?

In 2D graphics the card can boast such features, which allow us to use it together with 17"and 19" monitors, and maybe even with 21" ones as well (such as ViewSonic P810, for example,which was used in our case).

You probably know, that nVidia Riva TNT2 chipset supports two main API in 3D: Direct3D and OpenGL.We will consider both of them in the following applications:

• 3D Mark99 MAX. This popular synthetic benchmark draws our attention, because it allowscomplex testing with a new version DirectX 6.1.
• Incoming. This is a true gaming program, which allows utilizing maximum number of 3D-featuresin Direct3D (except multitexturing). This game lets us watch the performance of the accelerator incomplicated scenes. Besides, there is a very convenient and well-developed fps (frames per second)measuring tool.
• Shogo. This is another gaming program with a RevShogo demo (which allows calculating the finalfps result after a 6100-frame scene). This game is very remarkable due to the possibility of enablingor disabling multitexturing in Direct3D (it is disabled as default).
• Quake2. Well, this is already a traditional way to check the performance of the graphics card inOpenGL. We use v.3.20, demo massive1.dm2.

We tested the card in two color regimes - 16- and 32-bit - in all cases except Shogo. It isquite evident that the results posted only for our cards tested won't be enough for the appropriateanalysis. So, we decided to compare the figures obtained to those we had got for the following graphicscards before:

• 3dfx Voodoo3 3000 (166/166MHz and overclocked to 195/195MHz)
• ASUS V3800TVR (nVidia Riva TNT2) (125/150MHz and overclocked to 150/200MHz)
• ATI Rage Magnum (ATI Rage128) (100/100MHz)

First, let's pay attention to 16-bit color. Below you can see the diagrams, two for eachbenchmark (for Pentium III and K6-2 systems).

Well, what can we say here regarding these data? First of all, we see that nVidia Riva TNT2Ultra became the winner in practically all the regimes of Direct3D in both types of systems:in Pentium III, and in K6-2 one. However, as it comes to OpenGL, the whole thing appears verynoteworthy. The first benchmarks were run with the version 1.73 of the drivers, and almost everytime (for both: Pentium III and K6-2 systems) 3dfx Voodoo3 3000 was the winner (it was tested witha minidriver version 1.48). But today, when we have shifted to v.1.88, which supports 3DNow!, nVidiaRiva TNT2 based graphics cards (not only Ultra version, but also all the other Riva TNT2 cards)won the leading position in K6-2 system. This fact greatly contributes to the advantages of nVidiaRiva TNT2. Besides, we also feel like mentioning a somewhat higher speed in OpenGL in Pentium IIIsystem, though it could have increased a bit more. Nevertheless, we can hardly keep on statingthat 3dfx Voodoo3 3000 is an indisputable leader in OpenGL. And again, this is not the end yet.Some time ago 3dfx released new drivers for 3dfx Voodoo3 including ICD OpenGL, which guaranteedperfect performance of Quake3. And so, we tested 3dfx Voodoo3 3000 with those drivers. However,we discovered a significant speed drop, which was absolutely absent with the minidriver. The chartbelow represents the results taken from Quake2 in 16-bit color. Note that the data obtained for3dfx Voodoo3 3000 were taken from ICD OpenGL.

As we see, 3dfx Voodoo3 3000 suffered quite tangible losses. Of course, you still can use theminidriver while playing Quake2 or some similar games based on the same engine, despite the existingQuake3 optimized drivers. However, the majority of users will still try to avoid installing aminiGL driver every time they want to play a different OpenGL game since there is a full ICDdriver available now. In this situation the advantages of nVidia Riva TNT2 are just at hand!And 3dfx can do nothing to save the matter: even its main trump - multitexturing - won't help.And now let's dwell on the 32-bit color regime. Again you will see two diagrams for each benchmark:one for Pentium III system and another for K6-2.

This is a triumph! nVidia Riva TNt2 Ultra proves an absolute champion here! Even a cheapernVidia Riva TNT2 card easily leaves Rage128 far behind. Anyway, let's take a closer look atthe results obtained. What is typical of 32-bit color (we mean the main drawbacks of this regime)?The most frequently occurring thing is that it can sharply cut the performance of the accelerator.But what we see here is just shocking! If the non-overclocked cards based on Riva TNT2 theperformance drop makes about 30% (which is a bit lower than by an ordinary nVidia Riva TNT -42%), then it gets even greater than that as it comes to overclocked accelerators.

However, in the systems with a less powerful CPU (K6-2) nVidia Riva TNt2 Ultra proved to bea perfect gaming card at the resolutions up to 1600x1200 in 32-bit color! A large number ofalmost equal columns on the diagram means that the present processors are often not powerfulenough to make use of all the potential buried in nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra.

But this is not the end yet. The fact that Shogo supported multitexturing wasn't mentionedfor nothing. And this regime has always been a strong point for 3dfx Voodoo3. That's why wetested both: nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra and 3dfx Voodoo3 3000 in multitexturing. Here are theresults obtained for the resolution equal to 1024x768x16 for Intel Pentium III 500MHz system:

As we have expected, 3dfx Voodoo3 got a greater gain in multitexturing than nVidia Riva TNT2Ultra, though it failed to surpass the latter anyway. Both graphics cards performed on almost thesame level.

And to finish speaking about the performance in 3D we would like to offer you a diagramrepresenting the scalability, i.e. the dependence of the graphics card performance on theCPU frequency (3D Mark99 MAX, 1024x768x16):

In the system assembled with Pentium II we see that nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra proves quiteadvantageous despite the processor frequency decrease. While in the system on K6-2 the pictureturns out rather twofold: nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra is very often the best solution, though 3dfxVoodoo3 3000 can also boast pretty strong position and doesn't give in.

Summing up all the results of nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra performance analysis we can draw thefollowing conclusions. For systems based on Pentium II (III) Creative 3D Blaster Riva TNT2Ultra occupies the leading position in Direct3D and stays up to the level of 3dfx Voodoo33000 in OpenGL (sometimes it retains the same level and sometimes falls slightly behind).However, despite this lag insignificant in most cases the card proves cool for gaming. As forK6-2 systems, nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra can boast indisputable leadership, though it is still notthat remarkable because of the certain limitations, imposed on it by the CPU. That's why theprice of the graphics card may tip the scale.

Hope you are not bored yet by reading this stuff. :) And if you start feeling slightly dozythen you are not the right person to deal with the newest graphics accelerators, because thecoolest card based on nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra deserves more than your indifferent mumbling. ;)

Now let's pass over to the quality matters. Actually, there isn't much to say here. 3D-graphicsis absolutely the same as by nVidia Riva TNT and TNT2. The only thing worth mentioning is that thequality is quite OK, almost without any serious drawbacks. In fact, it looks as if nVidia Riva TNTwere the best 3D-accelerator in 32-bit color regime during the last year, which was inherited byits successor nVidia Riva TNT2. As for the 16-bit color, we would argue about the popular statementthat 3dfx Voodoo3 provides the best picture here. If you'd like to know our opinion, there hardlyseems to be any difference between the 16-bit image by 3dfx Voodoo3 and nVidia Riva TNT2 (despiteall the debate about the 22-bit rendering of 3dfx Voodoo3, which is supposed to furnish a muchbetter image). And the Glide is no longer that popular among game developers. First, there aren'tmany new Glide-games. And the second thing. In order to solve the problem with the older gamessupport for this particular API, Creative has worked out a special Unified driver, which makes itpossible to run such games on Creative 3D Blaster Riva TNT2 Ultra and Creative Graphics BlasterRiva TNT. And the quality achieved turned out quite satisfactory, actually. Moreover, Creative isconstantly updating and optimizing this driver. Hence we have every right to hope that one day we'llbe able to run Unreal Glide-version, which will be none the worse than on Voodoo mainboards. Besides,Unreal v.2.25 has an improved Direct3D regime as well.

However, nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra still has a certain drawback - the quality of tri-linearfiltering. Instead of direct tri-linear filtering in DirectX, nVidia Riva TNT and Riva TNT2chipsets use approximation, i.e. emulation. Why? Well, you'd better ask nVidia about it.Probably, it is because of the performance drop of up to 40%, which is inevitable with truetri-linear filtering. And the emulation sacrifices the quality. Compare two screenshots below:the left one taken on ATI Rage128, and the right one - on nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra.

ATI Rage128

nVidia Riva TNT2

We hope you see the difference...

And now a few words about the main peculiarity of Creative 3D Blaster Riva TNT2 Ultra - about theTV-out. Three simple words will be more than enough to describe its quality: nothing has changed!The same regimes - 800x600 and 640x480 with 60Hz refresh rate, the same properties, as by tens ofother cards...

Well, let's sum up. Those of you who managed through the whole review up to this line haveprobably understood that Creative 3D Blaster Riva TNT2 Ultra - though it is a bit more expensivethan 3dfx Voodoo3 3000 - performs significantly better in Direct3D in 32-bit color than itscompetitor, especially if overclocked. In OpenGL the performance is almost on the same levelwith 3dfx Voodoo3 3000, which is quite good. That is why this graphics card seems to be mostpreferable today. The price-to-performance ratios are again almost the same by these two graphicscards. However, we hope that the cost of the new cards will quickly go down in a short while andthe price difference between Creative 3D Blaster Riva TNT2 Ultra and 3dfx Voodoo3 3000 will get tonaught. Then it will make absolutely no sense to distinguish any of them as the leader: Creative 3DBlaster Riva TNT2 Ultra will be beyond all competition.