Futuremark 3DMark06 build 1.0.2

It’s different in 3DMark06: the PowerColor X1900 GT can’t defeat the GeForce 7900 GT because the tests are more complex, requiring a fast execution of shaders as well as a high scene fill rate. Let’s view the results by the groups of tests.

As might have been expected, the PowerColor X1900 GT is a little slower than the GeForce 7900 GT and the Radeon X1800 XT 512MB in the SM2.0 graphics tests. The biggest gap can be observed in the first test of this group, the one which is the most sensitive to the fill rate parameter.

Contrary to the previous case, the PowerColor X1900 GT shows its best in the SM3.0/HDR tests where its 36 pixel processors have got a lot of work to do executing numerous pixel shaders. Its speed in this group of tests is even a little higher than that of the Radeon X1800 XT 512MB.

The supposition is true: the PowerColor X1900 GT is indeed not very good in the first test that features 26 light sources and high-resolution shadow maps. It is slower than the GeForce 7900 GT and the Radeon X1800 XT 512MB which have 24 and 16 TMUs, respectively.

Using its Fetch4 technique to accelerate the rendering of shadows with the CSM method, the Radeon X1900 GT isn’t slower than the GeForce 7900 GT in the second test. The relatively low GPU clock rate puts it behind the Radeon X1800 XT 512MB. The overclocking eliminates this gap.

Thus, the Radeon X1900 GT is slower than the GeForce 7900 GT in one test only. It is the first test in the SM3.0 group which is very sensitive to texturing and lighting-processing speed. In the second test of this group the situation changes into the opposite. Considering the use of FSAA in the individual tests, the overall scores look well-deserved.