Articles: Graphics
 

Bookmark and Share

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

Futuremark 3DMark06

Although the graphics tests from 3DMark06 are actually modified tests from the 3DMark05 suite, the GeForce 7950 GT 256MB, at the standard frequencies, scores only 110 points less than the Gigabyte card. The Foxconn GeForce 7950 GT 256MB even scores 194 points more than the Gigabyte GeForce 7950 GT, which look right, considering its higher computing power.

In the SM2.0 tests the difference is as small as in the previous case. The Gigabyte card scores 50 points (or 2.5%) more against its 256MB opponent that works at the reference card’s frequencies. Working at its native frequencies, the Foxconn card scores 90 points more than the Gigabyte.

The difference is bigger in the SM3.0/HDR tests, but only amounts to 86 points or 4%. When the Foxconn card works at its native frequencies, it scores 72 points more than its opponent.

Unlike in the same situation in 3DMark05, the Foxconn GeForce 7950 GT 256MB is much slower than the Gigabyte GeForce 7950 GT in the second SM2.0 test when working at the reduced frequencies. The difference is 25% now. We can’t pinpoint the reason, but the abundance of vegetation and the use of high-resolution shadow maps and of a complex lighting model must have put a high load on graphics memory.

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

Discussion

Comments currently: 16
Discussion started: 02/08/07 07:28:33 PM
Latest comment: 09/28/07 09:16:51 AM

View comments

Add your Comment