New benchmark

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: MoMeanMugs
I re-ran @ 1680x1050 and got 91.7 FPS. Something isn't right with bryanW1995's computer.

i have 256 mb gpu ram for one thing, also xp home

 

[cmdrdredd]

doesn't seem to like ATI GPUs that much, at least not the HD2900. Or just that whatever features this benchmark is using just run better on Nvidia hardware. A true testament to the fact that AMD needs a specific driver for everything in order to extract performance.

 

[VirtualLarry]

darn, requires net framework to install

 

[BlizzardOne]

312.7fps @ 1920x1200 0xAA/0xAF
117.9fps @ 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF

8800 Ultra (655/1660/2250), X6800 @ 2.93

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Azn
this benchmark is way off. It's not real situation in a game or doesn't even come close. I'd choose 3dmark over this.

3dmark does not do realtime radiosity and GI which is the point of the benchmark.

Every game engine up to now has required the levels be pre-processed as realtime lighting like the above was extremely slow. Pay attention to the radiosity especially.

If you shine a light on a wall painted red, that light scatters onto nearby objects also coloring them with a reddish light. That kind of lighting is hard on cpu and gpu and I know of no game engines that do it in realtime.

This benchmark is so incomplete to have a analysis like that.

 

[Mir96TA]

3357 @ 1024X1280

 

[bryanW1995]

well, one thing I noticed is that I got the same exact score when using catalyst to set gpu to 668/927 as I did at stock of 621/900. I know that CCC is working b/c my 3dmark 06 numbers are significantly better at the former. soo.......we know that for some reason this test doesn't activate ati's 3d clocks feature.

 

[Modelworks]

I'm pretty sure the test is using opengl.
Which may factor into the results some people are getting.

 

[MoMeanMugs]

Mine is 628/702. I'm not seeing how the memory difference gives such a performance disparity.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: Denithor
1024x768 76.7
1280x1024 72.7
1600x1200 62.7

All stock:
e6400
x1900gt 256MB rev1
2GB OCZ DDR2-667 4-4-4-15

EDIT:
Looks like I didn't become gpu bound until went above 1280x1024. How much of this benchmark is dependent on cpu versus gpu? When I get my IP35-E next week (ZZF is kinda slow on shipping these days...) I will play around with different processor speeds and see how it scales with more cpu power.

Update:

e6400 @ 2.8GHz
4GB HP DDR2-667 CAS5 (3.25GB visible in XP) [OCZ memory not compatible with IP35-E]

1024x768 84.3
1280x1024 69.6
1600x1200 67.3

I saw improvements here of 10% @ 10x7 and 7% @ 16x12 but strangely the result dipped at 12x10 (repeated twice with results 0.1 fps apart). Obviously this benchmark draws from both processor power and GPU but weights GPU more heavily (30% increase in cpu yields <10% boost in performance).

 

[njdevilsfan87]

1680x1050 full screen no AA/AF gave me 368.9 with Q6600 at 3.15GHz and 8800GT 710/1775/1950.