Articles: Graphics
 

Bookmark and Share

(38) 
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 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 ]

A similar test for pixel shaders version 1.4 shows that RADEON X1800 XT is a leader in low resolution and then slows down to the level of its major competitor in 1600x1200.

RADEON X1800 XT is very far behind GeForce 7800 GTX: ATI’s new solutions cannot withstand the more pixel processors of their rival. Maybe it is not just the number of pixel processors, but also the raw drivers, because RADEON X1800 XL is the slowest of all in this test, which shouldn’t be happening keeping in mind its extremely high clock frequencies. Again we can see that the new memory controller does have its positive effect on the performance of the new ATI solutions: as the resolution increases, RADEON X1800 doesn’t lose speed as dramatically as NVIDIA products.

A similar test from the 3DMark05 benchmarking suite once again proves that RADEON X1800 works very well with shaders rich in complex texturing. In our case the shader of the rock consists of two color maps, two normal maps and uses Lambertian diffuse shading. Only 24 pixel processors allows GeForce 7800 GTX to retain the leading positions in this test. RADEON X1800 XL also performs quite well here, yielding only to the elder brother.

 
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 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 38
Discussion started: 10/06/05 12:54:52 AM
Latest comment: 12/16/06 07:48:37 AM

View comments

Add your Comment