Hey guys--
There seems to be some really weird inconsistancies in the benchmarks I've been seeing for the new gf4, gf3ti500, and 8500 series cards.
1. For instance, in anandtech serious sam bench the 8500 has a fillrate of 467 while the LE has a fillrate of 368. Since the clock speeds are only 10% apart (and that's a 27% difference in fillrate), isn't that theoritically impossible? Something is definetely wrong with that.
2. Why are the benchs on the anandtech site and x-bit labs site so different? The ti500 actually looks pretty competitive on the xbit site.
3. Why are the 3dmark totals all of a sudden included on the anandtech website when they never have before? And what happened to max payne and unreal tournament tests?
4. Look at the 2x AA results for unreal-- the 8500 scores 46 but the LE 20? What is up with that?
Anybody have any answers to these?
Taylor34
There seems to be some really weird inconsistancies in the benchmarks I've been seeing for the new gf4, gf3ti500, and 8500 series cards.
1. For instance, in anandtech serious sam bench the 8500 has a fillrate of 467 while the LE has a fillrate of 368. Since the clock speeds are only 10% apart (and that's a 27% difference in fillrate), isn't that theoritically impossible? Something is definetely wrong with that.
2. Why are the benchs on the anandtech site and x-bit labs site so different? The ti500 actually looks pretty competitive on the xbit site.
3. Why are the 3dmark totals all of a sudden included on the anandtech website when they never have before? And what happened to max payne and unreal tournament tests?
4. Look at the 2x AA results for unreal-- the 8500 scores 46 but the LE 20? What is up with that?
Anybody have any answers to these?
Taylor34
Facebook
Twitter