|
|
Benchmarks
Hardware
| CPU | Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 @ 3.0 GHz |
| Motherboard | Asus P5W DH Deluxe |
| Memory | 2x1 GB Corsair PC2-6400 2x1 GB Crucial PC2-5300 |
| HDD | Maxtor 6B200M0 SATA Maxtor 6V300F0 SATA Seagate ST3200822AS SATA |
| PSU | ZALMAN ZM600-HP |
Software
| OS | Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit |
| nVidia Driver | Forceware 169.02 |
| ATI/AMD Driver | Catalyst 07.11 |
Sadly I had only the ATI's X1950XT to be used as a reference unit. While not the latest offering from ATI, still something that is widely used amongst the gamers.
3DMark06


Default settings
Let us start perhaps with the best known synthetic graphics benchmarking software. It is clear from the start that the rest of the charts will be showing similar trends on the performance difference. Both shader ratings are more than doubled and the overall 3DMark06 rating is not that far from doubling as well.
Call of Duty 4 - Epiloque


1680x1050 4xAA
Results recorded with Fraps. Overall the numbers are not that bad. 44.7 FPS average frame rate is more than playable with X1950XT.
Call of Duty 4 - Warpig


1680x1050 4xAA
More open space and the frame rates drop. Still the X1950XT manages to pull reasonable good framerates but the 8800GT have no problems on keeping up with the fast paced action.
Crysis


1280x800 Medium settings
Difference is the same as with the COD4 tests. As Crysis can really push the GFX card to the limit, we had to drop the settings to more playable levels for the ATI's card. If you want to play this game with higher resolutions, the 8800 GT the safe choice to make. At least you would be getting the best performance for the money.
| | Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | |


Content in english!
Sisältö suomeksi!
