Articles: Graphics
 

Bookmark and Share

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

Game 3 test is remarkable for highly complex geometry: there are almost twice as many polygons per frame compared with the previous test. All in all, the performance picture remains the same, with the only difference that in lower resolutions RADEON X1600 XT doesn’t get ahead of GeForce 6800, and even falls behind it with enabled FSAA. In general, we can state that there is evident parity between the ATI solutions and NVIDIA solutions featuring 12 pixel processors.

RADEON X1600 XT looks much better in Game 4 test, which takes real advantage of Shader Model 2.0. This is the test where pixel and vertex processor performance matters a lot, and ATI has it all under control due to new architectural advantages and 590MHz working frequency. As a result, RADEON X1600 XT is almost as fast as GeForce 6800 GT and even faster than the rival in low resolutions. In eye candy mode with enabled FSAA and anisotropic filtering our hero gets limited by the 128-bit memory bus: RADEON X800 XL and GeForce 6800 GT feature 32GB/s memory bus bandwidth, while RADEON X1600 XT can boast only 22.08GB/s.

All in all, the results of individual benchmarks from the 3DMaro03 testing suite revealed the advantages of the RADEON X1600 XT that determined its victory in the total scores chart. However, you shouldn’t forget that in higher resolutions than the 3DMark’s default 1024x768, its performance may be lower.

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

Discussion

Comments currently: 23
Discussion started: 10/07/05 08:33:42 PM
Latest comment: 01/08/08 01:13:38 PM

View comments

Add your Comment