Relative 3d Performance

[Geo]

So I was not-quite-satisfied with my BFG6800 and bought a BFG6800GT to replace it. The original is on ebay as we speak. I was comparing boxes last night and noticed that the vanilla has an effort by NV/BFG to strike back at the evil empire, Intel. A bar chart kind of deal, based on 3dm03 (ha!, the irony), comparing Intel Extreme Graphics 2 to NV products:

Relative 3d Graphics Performance

Basic Integrated Graphics (the footnote fingers the Evil I): 1
Nv GFX 5200 GPUs: Up to 9x
Nv GFX 5500 GPUs: Up to 12x
Nv GFX 5700 GPUs: Up to 33x
Nv GFX 5900 GPUs: Up to 53x
Nv GFX 6800 GPUs: Up to 97x

sez the box. POS 5200 is 9x the Intel integrated? Yowza, that's scary. Comparision was 3dm03 10x7 0aa/0af

 

[Richard]

Considering that Intel XG2 can't run all the '03 tests I can't say that chart is at all relevant. The different 5xxx comparisons would be more meaningful, if it wasn't for the gross oversimplification and deciding whether a 5900 XT is as good as a 5900 Ultra. At the end of the day it's all marketing but I wonder how regular gamer/messenger joe will even understand that chart.

 

[Geo]

Considering that Intel XG2 can't run all the '03 tests I can't say that chart is at all relevant. The different 5xxx comparisons would be more meaningful, if it wasn't for the gross oversimplification and deciding whether a 5900 XT is as good as a 5900 Ultra. At the end of the day it's all marketing but I wonder how regular gamer/messenger joe will even understand that chart.

What I got out of it, fairly or not, is that there is nearly two orders of magnitude performance difference between the baseline and the top end. That kind of extreme separation must make developers want to grind their teeth. It'd be interesting to see an analysis of the trend on that separation since the advent of the original Voodoo.