<%BANNER[top_768x90]%>
<%BANNER[banner_468x60_h]%>
<%BANNER[article]%>

Articles: Video

<%BANNER[fp_160x600_r_1]%>
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 ]

Far Cry

The pixel shader performance of a graphics card directly depends on the frequency of the GPU. That’s why the RADEON X850 XT Platinum Edition is superior on the Pier map. The shaders employed here aren’t complex enough for the GeForce6 cards to get any advantage from using Shader Model 3.0. Overclocking helps the WinFast PX6800 GT rise to the level of the RADEON X850 XT, but not to overtake the leader.

It’s even more difficult to compete with senior RADEON models in the “eye candy” mode as the performance of the graphics memory subsystem becomes important here. The overclocked PX6800 GT is only 5-7% slower than the RADEON X850 XT, though.

It’s different on the Research map with its per-pixel lighting: the GeForce 6800 series cards pass through this test successfully thanks to their support of Shader Model 3.0. The GeForce 6800 Ultra is no worse than the RADEON X850 XT. Meanwhile, the WinFast PX6800 GT is a little faster than the RADEON X800 XL at the default frequencies and as fast as the senior RADEON model at overclocking.

The “eye candy” mode brings the same results, except that the PX6800 GT equals the RADEON X800 XL rather than outperforms it.

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

<%BANNER[banner_468x60_f]%>

Discussion

Comments currently: 1
Discussion started: 11/20/06 11:15:18 AM
Latest comment: 11/20/06 11:15:18 AM

View comments

You must log in to add comments.
Unfortunately, the old registrations do not work anymore. Please register again. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Forgot password? Registration

remember me