Articles: Graphics
 

Bookmark and Share

(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 ]

Performance in Synthetic Benchmarks

Futuremark 3DMark03 build 340

The score achieved by the DeltaChrome S4 Pro cannot be called otherwise as “disappointing”. The only thing that is slower compared to the S4 Pro is the RADEON 9200 that cannot even pass the Mother Nature test. Let us now take a more detailed look at the 3DMark03’s game tests results:


The first game test relies on fillrate and efficient memory sub-system, which is why S3's DeltaChrome S4 Pro manages to stay very close to faster options, such as the RADEON 9600.




The second 3DMark03 gaming benchmark is more complex, as it uses pixel and vertex shaders and performs the rendering in a few passes. Due to low efficiency of internal micro-architecture, the DeltaChrome S4 Pro cannot compete against the RADEON 9600 or the GeForce FX 5600/5700, though, it still manages to outperform the RADEON 9200.

 

In the third test, which is not very much different from the second one, actually, the situation repeats.

As previously said, the fourth gaming test reveals the architectural drawbacks of all graphics processors in the most efficient way. Only the architectures that boast optimal pixel shader performance can win here. As you see, the DeltaChrome S4 Pro again can hardly be called really efficient when it comes to complex 3D graphics...

 
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: 0

Add your Comment