• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New benchmark

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top