Articles: Graphics
 

Bookmark and Share

(29) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 ]

Testbeds and Methods

After we discussed the engine and the concept of 3DMark05, it’s time to see some performance numbers. For our testing we used two computers: with AGP 8x interface and with PCI Express x16 interface for graphics cards configured as follows:

Testbed 1:

  • Athlon 64 3200+ CPU (2.00GHz, 1MB L2 cache);
  • ASUS K8V Deluxe mainboard;
  • OCZ PC-3200 Platinum EB DDR SDRAM (2x512MB, CL2.5-3-2-8);
  • Samsung SpinPoint SP0812C HDD (Serial ATA-150, 8MB buffer);
  • Creative SoundBlaster Audigy 2 sound card.

Testbed 2:

  • Intel Pentium 4 560 CPU (Socket 775, 3.60GHz, 1MB L2 cache);
  • Intel Desktop Board D925CXC;
  • 1GB DDR2 PC2-4300 (533MHz) SDRAM (Micron Technology, 2x512MB);
  • Samsung SpinPoint SP0812C HDD (Serial ATA-150, 8MB buffer);
  • Creative SoundBlaster Audigy 2 sound card.

Software:

  • Microsoft Windows XP Pro SP2, DirectX 9.0c;
  • ATI CATALYST 8-051-040825a-017633c;
  • NVIDIA ForceWare 66.29.

We did not disable any texture filtration optimization from NVIDIA’s or ATI’s drivers. Please keep in mind that these drivers are on the beta stage of testing by appropriate developers.

In order to determine whether the latest hardware from ATI and NVIDIA does take advantage of the additional functionality we included the results of two top graphics cards running different render-paths compared to determined by Futuremark: we tested NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra in SM3.0, SM2.0b and SM2.0 mode and tried ATI RADEON X800 XT Platinum Edition in SM2.0b and SM2.0 rendering paths.

Pay attention that graphics cards with less than 128MB of onboard memory could not perform full-scene antialiasing in resolutions higher than 1024x768.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 29
Discussion started: 09/29/04 05:22:30 PM
Latest comment: 08/28/06 09:00:48 AM

View comments

Add your Comment