Performance and Texture Quality in Gaming Benchmarks
Now let’s pass over to the investigation of performance dependence on the texturing quality settings. For this purpose we took Quake3 game, which serves as a basis for the whole bunch of games based on the same engine.
As you see playing with Texture Preference engine hardly tells on the performance of our FIC R96P: in the worst case the difference makes about 2 frames per second. We see a totally different picture in case of GeForce FX 5600 Ultra, which performs well only when working at 400/800MHz. Of course, enabling Performance and High Performance modes leads to a significant performance growth, however, the price we pay for this growth is very high: tri-linear filtering gets practically disabled, the textures start “rippling” and the borders between the MIP-levels become very distinct alongside with more other “nice things”. The quality of the final image becomes very low, that is why we wouldn’t recommend turning on these modes if you care at all about your image quality.
In Unreal Tournament 2003 there is bit different picture compared to the Quake 3 Arena. Texture quality influences performance a little bit more significantly in this benchmark, even though the largest gap between the lowest and highest Texture Quality is just 10 fps – there is hardly a point to sacrifice image quality for just 10 fps…
The winner here is the FIC R96P, while the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra can only compete with it in 1600x1200 because of its 800MHz memory.
And now let me make a small announcement. In the ongoing review of contemporary graphics accelerators based on RV350 and NV31, we are going to discuss how greatly their performance depends on the FSAA level and anisotropic filtering quality