Erazor X and X2
- Page 7
#2: Quake III Arena (Retail)
and "High" quality modes were used, and only the
High Quality" refers to a customized setting with
EVERYTHING tuned to the highest setting (texture and
on wall: ON
quality sky: ON
every frame: OFF
player model: OFF
Team Overlay: OFF
quality sound: ON
At this resolution, the test
was mostly CPU limited with no noticeable change in
performance, even as we moved from Normal to High quality mode.
However, the cards
dropped about 4 fps across the board when
pushed harder using Super High Quality setting.
There are no comparable
differences between the ELSA and Creative cards as they ran
neck-to-neck and neither are there significant differences
between the SDRs and DDRs. Anyway, you won't buy the GeForce
to run at this resolution! Move on...
Here we see the gap
developing between the SDRs and DDRs, with the fastest besting
the slowest by a 10 fps margin. Still, the Erazors cruised
right alongside the Annihilators.
This is surely the resolution
that most players SHOULD be concerned with. Anyone with a
17" or greater monitor will want their fps at this res,
and this is where you will kill to get yourself a DDR.
All self-respecting FPS
gamers want to play at this resolution and if you demand only
the best eye-candy, the Erazor X2 DDR delivers
the magical 60 fps. Most definitely, and I stress again, a DDR is a must.
Down here, the Erazor X2
DDR leads the Erazor X SDR by over 10 fps in High Quality
tests and almost 15 fps with eye-candy tuned to the highest.
Also, note that overclocking the DDR paid nice dividends in
the achieving the elusive 60 fps.
Next, as we expected, there
is no noticeable performance difference between the Erazor and
Creative GeForces in any way.
The greatest divide in
performance between the SDRs and DDRs is seen here. Interestingly, if you MUST
absolutely play at this resolution (why?!), then you know what
I will recommend.
And once again, no noticeable differences
between the Creative and the ELSA cards.