This should be intresting.. Tom's Hardware has some benchmark numbers that nvidia provided for a few things... Let's search and see what we find for the 9700 Pro:
The 3DMark score for the R300 was very hard to find. I just ended up searching the ORB for someone who had AA enabled, since the high scores do not, obviously.
Tom's said the GFfx scores were done by nvidia on a P4 3ghz. The specs of the ati 'puter I found was a P4 2543 with 1GB RAM. Not much else I could find. If anyone can point me to a detailed review of the 9700 with the numbers, I'll update that as well. I threw the GF4 numbers in because they were listed as comparison to the GFfx.
The UT2003 come straight from Anand: Anandtech review of 9700 Pro
The GFfx Benches from nVidia: Toms Hardware
Name of user 3dMark2001SE score came from: Eidolon
But, it looks more like the GFfx is falling in line with the 'about 20% faster' thinking. The UT2003 scores are a little over 30% faster, but we might want to wait for some benches coming from someplace other than nvidia before we decide. Doom3 Benchmark numbers would probably really help here.
UT 2003 Asbestos HQ 1280x1024-32 4xFSAA + 8x Aniso
GeForceFX: 108.4fps
R300*: 71.6fps
Geforce4 TI4600: 39.3fps
3D Mark 2001 Nature 1280x1024-32 4xFSAA + 8x Aniso
GeForceFX: 40.6fps
R300*: 31.6fps
Geforce4 TI4600: 16.2fps
Doom III 1280x1024-32 High Quality
GeForceFX: 49.8fps
R300: ?
Geforce4 TI4600: 20.9fps
*= The R300 chip benchmarks are run here with 4XAA+16X Ansio
?= I don't know if theres actually a way for us to benchmark Doom3 with the leaked version, and I couldn't find any hard data on it. If someone can point me somewhere, I'll update it.
The 3DMark score for the R300 was very hard to find. I just ended up searching the ORB for someone who had AA enabled, since the high scores do not, obviously.
Tom's said the GFfx scores were done by nvidia on a P4 3ghz. The specs of the ati 'puter I found was a P4 2543 with 1GB RAM. Not much else I could find. If anyone can point me to a detailed review of the 9700 with the numbers, I'll update that as well. I threw the GF4 numbers in because they were listed as comparison to the GFfx.
The UT2003 come straight from Anand: Anandtech review of 9700 Pro
The GFfx Benches from nVidia: Toms Hardware
Name of user 3dMark2001SE score came from: Eidolon
But, it looks more like the GFfx is falling in line with the 'about 20% faster' thinking. The UT2003 scores are a little over 30% faster, but we might want to wait for some benches coming from someplace other than nvidia before we decide. Doom3 Benchmark numbers would probably really help here.
