MrGaribaldi
Posts: 2,488 +1
Hello
Sorry for not posting this sooner (as I said I would in the drivers forum), but I'm having an exam in less than a week...
Anyways, here's a short comparison of what speed difference I got when upgrading from Cat 3.2 to Cat 3.4.
It's only syntethic benchmarks, as I don't have any of the regular benchmark games installed, nor could I find the cd's
I tested with 5 different benchmarks:
3dmark 03, 3dmark 2001, Nvidia's TreeMark, Imagination Technologies VillageMark and Vulpines GLmark.
I chose the last three as they didn't take too long to download, gave easy to read results, and actually worked... Yes, some of them are old, so I really doubt we'll see any special optimizations for them, and thus that any speed difference should be applicable all across the board...
Test Setup:
A7V8X (BIOS 1011)
Athlon XP 2500+ (Barton 333Mhz)
1GB PC2700 (DDR 333) TwinMos CAS2
ATI Radeon 9700pro
Win2k SP3
Cat 3.2 and Cat 3.4
All test were run @ 1024*768*32.
I tested each benchmark with 2 different settings:
Fastest possible (FP), in which all sliders were set to "High Performance", AF and AA set to "Application default" and Vsync Allways OFF.
Highest Quality (HQ), in which all sliders were set to "High Quality", AF @ 16x Quality and FSAA @ 4x.
3dmark (both versions) and VillageMark were run @ default settings, whereas I used Max settings for GLmark (Note: GLmark seems to be geard mostly towards Nvidia with special settings available just for them.), and the following settings for Nvidia's Treemark:
-tltest -bpp32 -depth8
But enough about that, let's take a look at some numbers:
First off 3dmark 2001
Cat 3.2 FP got 14332, HQ 9340
Cat 3.4 FP got 14197, HQ 9848
As you can see (if not fromt he graf, then from the numbers), that you loose 135 points (-1%) when running with FP settings... But as soon as you try HQ you get an increase of 508 points (+5.4%)... Not too bad...
3dmark 03:
Cat 3.2 FP got 4625, HQ 2094
Cat 3.4 FP got 4907, HQ 2378
A nice increase of 282 (6%) and 284 (13.5%) respectively... Not bad at all!
I couldn't post it all in one go, due to maximum image per post constraints...
Sorry for not posting this sooner (as I said I would in the drivers forum), but I'm having an exam in less than a week...
Anyways, here's a short comparison of what speed difference I got when upgrading from Cat 3.2 to Cat 3.4.
It's only syntethic benchmarks, as I don't have any of the regular benchmark games installed, nor could I find the cd's
I tested with 5 different benchmarks:
3dmark 03, 3dmark 2001, Nvidia's TreeMark, Imagination Technologies VillageMark and Vulpines GLmark.
I chose the last three as they didn't take too long to download, gave easy to read results, and actually worked... Yes, some of them are old, so I really doubt we'll see any special optimizations for them, and thus that any speed difference should be applicable all across the board...
Test Setup:
A7V8X (BIOS 1011)
Athlon XP 2500+ (Barton 333Mhz)
1GB PC2700 (DDR 333) TwinMos CAS2
ATI Radeon 9700pro
Win2k SP3
Cat 3.2 and Cat 3.4
All test were run @ 1024*768*32.
I tested each benchmark with 2 different settings:
Fastest possible (FP), in which all sliders were set to "High Performance", AF and AA set to "Application default" and Vsync Allways OFF.
Highest Quality (HQ), in which all sliders were set to "High Quality", AF @ 16x Quality and FSAA @ 4x.
3dmark (both versions) and VillageMark were run @ default settings, whereas I used Max settings for GLmark (Note: GLmark seems to be geard mostly towards Nvidia with special settings available just for them.), and the following settings for Nvidia's Treemark:
-tltest -bpp32 -depth8
But enough about that, let's take a look at some numbers:
First off 3dmark 2001
Cat 3.2 FP got 14332, HQ 9340
Cat 3.4 FP got 14197, HQ 9848
As you can see (if not fromt he graf, then from the numbers), that you loose 135 points (-1%) when running with FP settings... But as soon as you try HQ you get an increase of 508 points (+5.4%)... Not too bad...
3dmark 03:
Cat 3.2 FP got 4625, HQ 2094
Cat 3.4 FP got 4907, HQ 2378
A nice increase of 282 (6%) and 284 (13.5%) respectively... Not bad at all!
I couldn't post it all in one go, due to maximum image per post constraints...