OpenGL guy said:
dan2097 said:
Guden Oden said:
Why is it there are 3dmark scores of this thing out in the wild, but that I can't find any bloody PICTURES of the board??? Weird!
Anyway, it's a bit disappointing to say the least a "high-end" part is so much slower than a chip that was released some 1 1/2 year ago despite having pretty much the same basic specs (8 pixel pipes, 4 vertex shaders, similar clock speeds)... Is this chrome-whatsitsname thingy running on a single-channel 128-bit memory interface or something? What is it that holds this thing back? Less than 12k 3dmark01 is pitiful, there must be GF4Ti boards that do more than that on a 3GHz P4 system.
Ok, so drivers might be dodgy, but for how long have they been working on this thing anyway? It can't be yesterday they got the first working driver build up and running!
Its only got a 128bit memory bus
Ditto for GeForce 4... which I think was Guden's point.
Whoops for some reason I thought he was comparing to a radeon 9700
3d mark 2001 is a very poor bench for comparing new cards as to do well on it you have to app specifically optimize nature. Thus quite a lot of the result will depend on how aggressively (if at all)
sis is optimizing the nature test. The gf4 when using drivers up to 44.90 has some very aggresive optimizatiosn for the nature test i.e. almost double the frame rates. There are less in later drivers (which gives people more evidence to say later drivers are slower on geforce 4s, which may be true but not to the extent outlined)