Futuremark 3DMark06

The PowerColor X800 GTO 16 belongs to the Radeon X800 family and doesn’t support Shader Model 3.0, so there are no results of the appropriate 3DMark06 tests.

The higher level of detail of 3DMark06’s scenes and the lack of SM3.0 support affect the results of the Radeon X800 architecture here. The PowerColor X800 GTO 16 looks quite well in the earlier versions of the benchmark, but 3DMark06 puts it down on the same level with the GeForce 6800 which has much more humble characteristics but can pass both the SM3.0/HDR tests.

The GeForce 6800 GS deservedly enjoys the highest overall score. It is closely followed by the Radeon X1600 XT which works well with complex pixel shaders and scores a mere 111 points less although this graphics card from ATI has three times less TMUs than the GeForce 6800 GS has.

Analyzing the results of the SM2.0 tests separately, we can see that the PowerColor X800 GTO 16 doesn’t do so very bad. Here, it only scores 66 points less than the Radeon X1600 XT and 231 points more than the GeForce 6800.

Here, we are not as much surprised that the PowerColor X800 GTO 16 is slower than the GeForce 6800 GS as that it is also slower than the Radeon X1600 XT. The scene being very large, the latter card with its only four TMUs should have done worse. We can’t see anything like that, though, and the Radeon X1600 XT is confidently ahead of the PowerColor X800 GTO 16 in all the modes and resolutions.

The second SM2.0 graphics test resembles the second game test from 3DMark05 but features a more complex lighting model. The standings are different as a result: the GeForce 6800 GS has the highest “pure speed”, but the PowerColor X800 GTO 16 and the Radeon X1600 XT share the top place in the “eye candy” mode.

Like in the two previous versions of 3DMark, the overall scores of the participating graphics cards are confirmed by the results of the separate tests.