Articles: Graphics
 

Bookmark and Share

(9) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 ]

Performance in Synthetic and Semi-Synthetic Benchmarks

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

We minimize the CPU’s influence by using the Extreme profile (1920x1200, 4x FSAA and anisotropic filtering). We also publish the results of the individual tests across all resolutions.

The two versions of Radeon HD 6950 do not differ much whereas our overclocking of the PowerColor card isn't good enough to improve its score seriously. As a result, the GeForce GTX 570 remains unrivalled, followed by the GeForce GTX 560 Ti and Radeon HD 6870.

The same goes for the individual tests. The GeForce GTX 560 Ti is not as far behind the Radeon HD 6950 in the second test as in the first, the two cards being equal to each other at 2560x1600.

Futuremark 3DMark11

We use the Extreme profile here. As opposed to 3DMark Vantage, this profile uses a resolution of 1920x1080 pixels.

The two Radeon HD 6950s with different amounts of graphics memory deliver the same performance in this benchmark. Unlike in 3DMark Vantage, our overclocking makes the PowerColor card almost as fast as the GeForce GTX 570.

Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X. 2 Preview Benchmark

This benchmark makes wide use of tessellation to render the surface of the earth. The number of polygons per one frame can be as high as 1.5 million!

As opposed to the Radeon HD 6800, the Radeon HD 6900 series flies higher, yet not as high as the Nvidia Fermi solutions which have more advanced tessellation units. The performance of the PowerColor card is quite high in itself even at 2560x1600 but our overclocking isn’t rewarding.

Unigine Heaven 2.5 Benchmark

We use Normal tessellation in this test.

Despite its less advanced tessellation resources compared to the Fermi solutions, the Radeon HD 6950 is almost as fast as the GeForce GTX 570. Moreover, the bottom speed of the GeForce GTX 560 Ti plummets at resolutions of 1920x1080 and higher, making the PowerColor card even more competitive in this test.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 9
Discussion started: 04/01/11 02:23:20 PM
Latest comment: 04/09/11 05:30:33 AM

View comments

Add your Comment