|
Untitled Document
3D mark 2001
| Radeon 8500 3dmark 2001se results |
| |
Abit |
Albatron |
Asus |
Biostar |
Chaintech |
| 1.4ghz 133FSB 133RAM |
8370 |
8508 |
8352 |
8260 |
8497 |
| 1.75ghz 166FSB 166RAM |
9306 |
9242 |
9334 |
|
9341 |
| 1.75ghz 166FSB 200 Dual DDR |
|
9156 |
9164 |
|
9198 |
Note that 3dmark has a margin of error of approximately 100 points
either way, so the only notable performance difference between the boards is
the biostar, which scores a little lower by a small amount. These results confirm
that dual DDR and asynchronous RAM speeds have no benefit, and possibly even
slow things down a little.
| Geforce4mx420 (overclocked) 3dmark 2001se
results |
| |
Abit |
Albatron |
Asus |
Biostar |
Chaintech |
| 1.4ghz 133FSB 133RAM |
5103 |
5159 |
5084 |
5089 |
5142 |
| 1.75ghz 166FSB 166RAM |
5376 |
5377 |
5356 |
|
5349 |
| 1.75ghz 166FSB 200 Dual DDR |
|
5356 |
5372 |
|
5357 |
Here we see all the results are well within the margin of error,
and no difference at all between the boards. Again we see no benefits from dual
DDR400.
| Onboard Geforce4mx 3dmark 2001se results |
| |
Albatron |
Biostar |
| 1.4ghz 133FSB 133RAM |
2522 |
2376 |
| 1.75ghz 166FSB 166RAM |
2929 |
|
Here are the figures for the integrated Geforce 4mx graphics,
and as they clearly show, they are not at all sutiable for even the most casual
gamer. Although putting a GPU on the same lump of silicon as a northbridge seems
like a good idea, the shared ram cripples it to the point of being totaly useless
for any game playing. Don't make the mistake of thinking it performs like a
real Geforce 4mx AGP card, this is just another cheap and nasty onboard graphics
solution that you might find in an OEM office machine. In case you wondered,
there are no DDR400 results as niether board will run DDR400 with the onboard
graphics in use, the manuals specifically mention so.
Spec ViewPerf 7.1
ViewPerf is an OpenGL benchmark based around 3D studio Max. The
tests were run at 1.75ghz / 166FSB / 166RAM with the Geforce4mx card overclocked.
| Radeon 8500 Spec ViewPerf 7.1 results |
| |
Abit |
Albatron |
Asus |
Chaintech |
| 3dsmax-02 |
2.697 |
2.669 |
2.703 |
2.696 |
| drv-09 |
10.32 |
10.12 |
10.40 |
10.21 |
| dx-08 |
13.04 |
12.95 |
13.18 |
13.05 |
| light-06 |
2.592 |
2.567 |
2.594 |
2.592 |
| proe-02 |
3.260 |
3.210 |
3.269 |
3.233 |
| ugs-03 |
3.828 |
3.796 |
3.913 |
3.829 |
| Geforce 4mx 420 Spec ViewPerf 7.1 results |
| |
Abit |
Albatron |
Asus |
Chaintech |
| 3dsmax-02 |
6.437 |
6.278 |
6.571 |
6.271 |
| drv-09 |
26.26 |
25.75 |
27.22 |
25.61 |
| dx-08 |
30.00 |
30.00 |
30.20 |
29.97 |
| light-06 |
10.04 |
10.07 |
10.48 |
10.04 |
| proe-02 |
6.727 |
6.587 |
6.711 |
6.569 |
| ugs-03 |
4.564 |
4.774 |
4.815 |
4.770 |
| Onboard Geforce 4mx Spec ViewPerf 7.1
results |
| |
Albatron |
| 3dsmax-02 |
3.639 |
| drv-09 |
17.33 |
| dx-08 |
19.22 |
| light-06 |
8.198 |
| proe-02 |
5.048 |
| ugs-03 |
4.105 |
Again, there is little performance difference between the boards, with the
Asus being a tiny bit faster. A more interesting question is why does the Geforce
4mx perform so much better than the radeon? part of this can be put down to
ATIs driver problems with OpenGL, and its likely that 3D Studio MAX is optimised
for Nvidia chips. The onboard Graphics is slower than the seperate card, as
you would expect due to the much slower RAM, but still beats the Radeon. This
is the only point in favour of the integrated Geforce4mx, and it would make
a capable workstation graphics solution if you need just a little more than
generic solutions can give.
<< Back | 1 | | 2 | | 3 | | 4 | | 5 | | 6 | | 7 | | 8 | | 9 | | 10 | Next >>
|
