Articles: Graphics
 

Bookmark and Share

(19) 
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 ]

Synthetic Benchmarks: Geometry, Vertex Shaders Speed

We will start with measuring the efficiency of the classical T&L algorithm:

In this geometrical test from the 3DMark 2001SE DeltaChrome performs not bad at all: with the VPU working at only 300MHz it manages to outpace RADEON 9600 PRO. It probably also owes this success to the 4 vertex pipelines it features.

However, as we get more light sources involved, the new chip immediately slows down and appears in the very last position. The vertex processors are not efficient enough to ensure proper lighting processing. There is another proof to the point: despite 4 vertex processors, DeltaChrome S8 is as fast or slower than RADEON 9600 PRO with two pipelines and 400MHz working frequency.

Vertex shaders unit performance again doesn’t impress us. However, in 640x480 and 1024x768 DeltaChrome manages to outperform GeForce FX 5600 Ultra. Is it the price they have to pay for the flexibility of the vertex shader unit or the consequence of the low VPU and memory frequencies? Unfortunately, I do not know the exact answer to this question, but the results we obtained are far from nice.

In 3DMark03 DeltaChrome demonstrates much better vertex shaders processing speed than in 3DMark 2001SE. The new solution appears quite a worthy competitor to ATI RADEON 9600 PRO. The performance of DeltaChrome S8 is very likely to depend a lot on inefficient internal architecture aimed at higher flexibility rather than faster speed. In other words, we have another GeForce FX here. The chip can theoretically support a number of improvements compared with DirectX 9.0, however, these advantages are never used because of low performance. Even though the performance drop is not so dramatic as by competitors when we shift from shader version 1.1 to version 2.0.

 
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 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 19
Discussion started: 12/31/03 05:35:18 AM
Latest comment: 12/17/06 10:47:27 AM

View comments

Add your Comment