Articles: Graphics
 

Bookmark and Share

(13) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 ]

Here are the results obtained in the new tim_ut2003.dem record:

Wow, where are those impressive numbers exceeding 200fps? The graphics cards performance dropped 2-3 times down, which is not at all surprising, as the workload grew up tremendously. Now even in 1024x768 the graphics cards performance is not acceptable for comfortable gaming, not to mention higher resolutions.

But how does the whole picture look like now? Well, NVIDIA’s solutions have lost their indisputable leadership. GeForce FX 5900 is only a little faster than ATI RADEON 9800, while the advantage of GeForce FX 5900 Ultra over the rival from ATI is nearly negligible.

With enabled FSAA ATI based graphics cards appeared faster. The graphics cards on NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 managed to outperform the competitor only in 1024x768, and its elder brother, GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, turned out faster than RADEON 9800 pro only in 1600x1200.

With enabled anisotropic filtering ATI’s chips show better results than their competitors due to faster but less efficient implementation of this function.

Under the heaviest workload NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900/5900 Ultra based graphics cards suffer a complete defeat.

So, the results obtained in the standard Antalus Flyby demo indicated an indisputable victory of NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900/5900 Ultra based graphics solutions. However, in the new record, which was closer to the real gaming conditions, the advantages of NVIDIA’s chips over the rivals from ATI were no longer that evident. And under heavy workload NVIDIA completely lost the leadership.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 13
Discussion started: 09/14/03 04:30:25 AM
Latest comment: 07/27/08 06:39:03 AM

View comments

Add your Comment