Articles: Graphics
 

Bookmark and Share

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

Performance in Synthetic Benchmarks

Futuremark 3 DMark05 build 1.2.0

The Gigabyte GV-NX76T256D-RH is 864 points behind the Radeon X1800 GTO at the default frequencies. The gap is diminished t 319 points when the Gigabyte is overclocked, yet it still occupies the last place among the participating graphics cards.

The GV-NX76T256D-RH is as fast as the Radeon X1800 GTO in the “pure speed” mode, but slower at the “eye candy” settings due to the narrower memory bus.

There are different conditions in the second test: the scene is small, so the fill-rate parameter and memory bandwidth are not crucial factors, but there’s always a lot of work for pixel as well as vertex processors (the latter rendering the lush vegetation). Thanks to its 8 vertex processors, the Radeon X1800 GTO is ahead of the Gigabyte GV-NX76T256D-RH in every mode. The Gigabyte closes the gap by means of overclocking, but only in the “pure speed” mode.

The Gigabyte GV-NX76T256D-RH performs better in the third test, but only in the “pure speed” mode again. Surprisingly, the effect from our overclocking the Gigabyte card shows up stronger in this very large scene at the “eye candy” settings than in the second test. The performance gain is big enough to put the GV-NX76T256D-RH on the same level with the Radeon X1800 GTO, notwithstanding the latter’s 256-bit memory bus.

The low overall score of the GV-NX76T256D-RH is probably only due to its loss in the second test. In the first and third tests it is at least no worse than the Radeon X1800 GTO.

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

Discussion

Comments currently: 4
Discussion started: 08/31/06 04:14:04 AM
Latest comment: 10/07/06 03:34:14 PM

View comments

Add your Comment