Luminescent
Veteran
When do you guys believe the FX 3Dmark benchmarks will appear? If any of you already have the FX, would you mind benchmarking it with 3DMark03 and reporting the score, especially the synthetic PS 2.0 benchmark.
Geforce FX 3DMark03 benchmarks?
- Thread starter Luminescent
- Start date
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDI4LDQ=
Interesting.
Remember those questions about how GFFX would perform on the PS2.0 test? Ouch. Granted it is running 128bit precision... but is that extra precision over 96bit on the 9700pro worth 1/3 the performance?
The new drivers make a big difference, but it still doesn't seem to paint that Ultra part as being terribly Ultra.
Interesting.
Remember those questions about how GFFX would perform on the PS2.0 test? Ouch. Granted it is running 128bit precision... but is that extra precision over 96bit on the 9700pro worth 1/3 the performance?
The new drivers make a big difference, but it still doesn't seem to paint that Ultra part as being terribly Ultra.
Typedef Enum
Regular
Another question to ask yourself:
How many other benchmarking titles (be it games, apps, etc) show any tangible increase in performance...OUTSIDE of FutureMark...in using the newer drivers?
How many other benchmarking titles (be it games, apps, etc) show any tangible increase in performance...OUTSIDE of FutureMark...in using the newer drivers?
Doomtrooper
Veteran
I'd like to see some overclocked 9700 scores in comparison..my new OEM 9700NP came today and to my surprise the clock is already 324/310 (or I got a Pro instead) 
and with a simple Crystal orb running stable 375/323...not bad for $340 Canadian and no dustbuster.
and with a simple Crystal orb running stable 375/323...not bad for $340 Canadian and no dustbuster.
surfhurleydude
Newcomer
Pixel Shader 2.0 for the GF FX seems VERY low... TOO low as a matter of fact... is PS 2.0 for the GF FX broken in the drivers or something? Hell, in almost every other previous PS test I've seen the GF FX SOLIDLY outperforms the Radeon 9700 Pro..
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Where have you been? Every test we've seen here has been pretty much the opposite. The 3D Mark PS 2.0 test is consistent with other DX9 shading benchmarks.
The big question is PS 1.4.
What changed in the GeForce drivers between revisions? Changed fp precision? Running in PS 1.1 (integer) vs. PS 1.4 (fp) mode?
surfhurleydude
Newcomer
Every test I've seen shows the GF FX lose badly in VERTEX shader performance, but not DX 8 Pixel Shader performance...
Joe DeFuria
Legend
DX 8.0 (Ps 1.1) or DX 8.1 (Ps 1.4) ?
surfhurleydude
Newcomer
PS 1.1, sorry...
PS 1.4 3dmark test is horrible as well, scoring near Radeon 8500 levels. This leads me to believe that something is broken in the drivers...
PS 1.4 3dmark test is horrible as well, scoring near Radeon 8500 levels. This leads me to believe that something is broken in the drivers...
Joe DeFuria said:
My bet is that they changed fp precision. Since the game test #4 results are in line with game test #2 and #3, I don't think we are talking about running in PS 1.1 (integer) vs. PS 1.4 (fp) mode (although this could still be the case for GT 2 & 3 of course).
Joe DeFuria
Legend
In any case, it is still surprsing to me that in these GPU INTENSIVE tests that the GeForceFX with a 50% pixel rate advantage isn't absolutely clobbering the Radeon 9700 Pro.
That fact that the FX is "only" on Par in the DX8 benchmarks, and about 30-50% short of the Radeon 9700 in PS 2.0.....things don't look very good for the FX ARchitecture.
Either the FX architecture (or drivers?) is very inefficient, or Radeon 9700's larger bandwidth is having a bigger impact on shader performance than most of us anticipated.
That fact that the FX is "only" on Par in the DX8 benchmarks, and about 30-50% short of the Radeon 9700 in PS 2.0.....things don't look very good for the FX ARchitecture.
Either the FX architecture (or drivers?) is very inefficient, or Radeon 9700's larger bandwidth is having a bigger impact on shader performance than most of us anticipated.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Good observation!
