I would just like to add, this is the longest topic on this message board by a long shot. I am glad to see so many people interested.
 
Okay, enough of that or I am going to gag.
 
Later..
 
@sylum..
 
Thanks to JimmyK for making this topic interesting again.

hehe okay back to the biggest point
 
the sdr version do, do the 480 mps fill rate thats the whole thing quad pipeline, thats part of the geforce technology. I mean for crying out loud the tnt2 does more then 240 check nvidias site. Im telling you it has a fill rate of 480 mps... I dont think you really know the difference betweed sdr and ddr do ya? let me explain it just incase ur a lil misinformed.
 
the ddr is better/faster ram. At higher resolutions with SDR ram ur limited by the memory bandwidth not FILLRATE. Now the DDr ram has pretty much no actual limitations get it bud? below is just a summary of what I said above.
 
sdr = a memory bandwidth limitation
 
ddr = no real limitation
 
the problem with sdr is if u wanna play 1024 X 768 X 32 bit you are limited by memory bandwidth
 
ddr uses ddr ram thus no limitation
 
Okay yes the gpu does free up a lil processor usage but ONLY for opengl games, NO direct 3d games as of now have any kind of support for T&l. Unless the game is written natively for dx7 which has support for hardware t&l, but the game requires extra coding to use T&l with dx7.
 
Meaning only opengl games are taking a limited usage of it, the d3d games arent.
 
Oh yeah, if the onboard GPU is properly used oh man its going ot be all over. We will be able to focus mad amounts of processor cycles to AI and other good stuff like that. The fillrate is also dependant on the GPU not only the main processor. Better use of the GPU yileds much higher fillrate usage. So if you had a game that took total pure 100% gpu power all ud need is about 20-30 percent of your normal cpu to power the game and the rest would be allocated to other goodies such as AI, sound, etc.
 
hehe yeah this is by far the longest thread here

Okay, I must have been mistaken, but I could have sworn that I had read an artcle or two the clearly stated that the sdr card ran at 240Mps. But today when I went to look for them I found this which proves your point.
 
Just recently, the topic of using Double Data Rate SDRAM or SGRAM on a GeForce 256 board was brought up with the announcement of DDR GeForce 256 boards from Creative Labs, Guillemot, and Leadtek. Double Data Rate (DDR) SDRAM/SGRAM has been around for quite some time and is theoretically a very intelligent solution that offers a low latency and a greater memory bandwidth. The way DDR SDRAM/SGRAM works is that it transfers data on both the rising and falling edges of the clock like the AGP bus, therefore doubling the amount of available memory bandwidth. This way, NVIDIA can boast that their 128-bit memory bus offers just as much bandwidth as Matrox's Dual 128-bit bus or as a 256-bit memory bus.
 
At the current memory clock speed, using DDR SDRAM on a GeForce 256 would result in an amazing 5.2GB/s of memory bandwidth, and at 200MHz (5ns chips) it would offer 6.4GB/s. This would come in handy particularly in 32-bit color rendering modes and at high resolutions when a considerable amount of memory is required.
 
Unfortunately, there is a downside to all of this. Currently, DDR SDRAM/SGRAM is very rare and it will continue to be rare for quite some time. The chances of picking up a GeForce 256 this year with DDR memory on it is next to nothing and the first signs of publicly available DDR models will probably be sometime next year. Samsung recently announced their DDR SDRAM chips but for now they are out of the reach of the mass market, making our conventional SDRAM/SGRAM (also referred to as Single Data Rate - SDR) the choice for most GeForce 256 boards.
 
Now I have a question for you. Why wouldn't more memory bandwidth give you higher fillrate. What memory are we talking about. Probably not frame buffer, and probably not system memory.
 
Later.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will)...
 
Put it this way, my Dual Celeron 550's running Q3A are just as busy at 320x240 resolution as they are at 1024x768 and at 1280x1024. Now if 320x240 requires less CPU, THEN WHAT THE HELL ELSE ARE THEY DOING?
 
I agree that the theoretical peak fill-rate for the 120MHz GeForce (both SDR & DDR) is 480Mpixels/sec. But it will never be that high in a graphically complex game like Q3A as the GeForce simply cannot get the data out of the memory fast enough! The DDR version will be much better, but I'd say the memory speed of the GeForce DDR may still be the limiting factor for its performance.

I would say your right your cpu is just as busy at low resolutions as it is at high resolutions. Triangle calulation should use the same amount of cpu at all resolutions, since the resolution doesn't effect how many triangles are on the screen. I don't know the direct effect, but higher resolutions require a higher fill rate and there is a link between fill rate and the processor. This is one of the topics I have been discussing with JimmyK. Hopefully he can help shead some light on the subject. I believe that in smp mode, the second processor helps with triangle calulations, or takes other calulations off of the main cpu. Therefore the main cpu has more resources for triangle calulations, better known as float point calulations.

yeah I got a few things to say, about hi vs low res fill rate and cpu usage but I'm in college hell week (exams) so gimme a few days fellas Ill post on the 17th, excuse me