Articles: Graphics
 

Bookmark and Share

(22) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 ]



The second test scene is somewhat limited if compared with the scenes from the first or the third tests. The PowerColor X800 GTO feels confident here and is not so far behind the GeForce 6800 GS as in the first test – the gap is no more than 10% in the “pure speed” mode and 20% in the “eye candy” mode.

The micro-architecture of the PowerColor X800 GTO is not optimized to execute long pixel shaders the scene abounds in, hence, the particular results are lower compared to competing products because of relatively low clock-speed as well as only 12 pixel processors. As you can easily guess, the GeForce 6800 GS holds the top place for itself in all the resolutions, while the RADEON X800 XL and RADEON X1600 XT share the second position. The former makes up for the architectural deficiencies with its 16 pixel pipelines, while the latter features Shader Model 3.0 support and is optimized to execute pixel shaders of the maximum degree of complexity.

So, the overall scores are well-deserved, too, although the GeForce 6800 GS is generally faster than the RADEON X1600 XT in high resolutions and in the “eye candy” mode. As for the RADEON X800 GTO, it is impeded by its lack of Shader Model 3.0 support and by its 12 pixel pipelines. For example, the 16-pipelined RADEON X800 XL is no worse than the GeForce 6800 GS in the 3DMark05 tests.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 22
Discussion started: 11/27/05 12:22:39 PM
Latest comment: 03/28/07 03:42:26 AM

View comments

Add your Comment