 |
Printed On: | August 8, 2008, 9:04 am |
| Category: | GPUs & Graphic Cards | |
| Type: | Reviews | |
| Posted By: | yantronic | |
| Date Posted: | January 11, 2008, 8:07 am |
 |
Synthetic Performance Comparison
We've just dug up a copy or two of Beta Forceware. Here's a quick look at the performance over the existing WHQL driver, the 169.25. Test bench specifications, and RivaTuner shots are below:
Futuremark 3DMark06
CPU overheads have gone down with the beta drivers, yet 3D performance (particularly SM3.0/HDR) has taken a hit from switching to beta. Apparently there's some work to be done over at Santa Clara, for DX9.0C.
|
OpenGL 2.0 - Quake 4
We ran a timedemo on Quake 4 at 1600x1200 with 4xAA.
Readers should have noticed the blank on the bar corresponding to 173.61 drivers. With this particular beta driver, Quake 4 refused to operate at all. Upon entering 3D, the display would blank. A 0.3FPS difference in OpenGL 2.0 performance is of no worry. The finalised drivers should do better.
|
DX10 - Crysis
Crytek Crysis DX10
"Torturous" is the one word to describe how current generation graphics accelerators find Crysis in DX10. We used 1440x900 resolution, with 2xAA and below settings. The internal batch file timedemo gave the below performance.
Performance improvement was apparent. 4FPS on DX10 is something difficult not to spot.
|
Conclusion
It should be immediately apparent that the Beta drivers we've sourced have yet to be optimised. Performance improvements are inconsistent and often worse than existing WHQL drivers. Ultimately, these new releases are meant to improve on multi-GPU and DX10 performance. Here's a little parting gift to our online readers.
See anything new? =P
|