View Single Post
Old Jul 7, 2004, 06:26 PM   #1
Advertisement (Guests Only)

Login or Register to remove this ad
mpFLUX
Radeon R420
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 245
mpFLUX is still being judged by the masses


Default New benchmark shows 6800's true weaknesses...multitexturing!

Again!! Multi-texturing performance holds the NV back!!

Ok...

Here I wanna talk about something that we have talked about in the
past. Its something called "Multi-texturing" and after these past few
years of Nvidia's cards being DOMINATED by Radeons in the multi
texture fill-rate catagory, you would think that Nvidia would have
worked really hard to drastically improve NV40's multi-texturing
capabilities... but they failed to do so, and this is whats going to
make the 6800 look weak in 1 year when current fillrate requirements
double.

And even though their Pixel Shader performance has over
trippled, well over 300% better then 5900 series cards it is
still way inferior to the X800 and even the 9800XT.

Here is the proof that the 6800 reference design is seriously
lacking the "balls" to hold its own under the heaviest demand, and
the proof is in the numbers.

Lets take a look at a new Benchmark tool that is quickly beginning
to show up across the major hardware sites.

Its called "FillRateBenchmark" and its made by a company
called NDaw Interactive.

You can download FillRateBench 2004 from this
website... http://www.geocities.com/ndawinteractive/

I **HIGHLY** suggest that you all download a copy of this benchmark
tool and run it on your 9800 Pro's and 9800 XT's to get a baseline for
your own system.

Here are the settings that seem to be the most widely used
for benchmarking with FILLRATEBENCH.

1024x176 - D16 - No AA - No AF

Please take a look at this link here, it shows the results for
fillratebenchmark for the 6800 Non-Ultra reference 12 pipe
card running 350 mhz core.

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/gefor...6800_61.34.png

Ok.... Now pull up that image in the link above and then
compare it against the score you pulled off of your Radeon
9800 pro or 9800 XT.

See the "Dual Textures", "Triple Textures" and "Quad
Textures" test results? Now compare those against your
9800 Pro.

The 6800 falls behind the 9800 Pro by 30% when Dual
Textures are used on one pass... and falls 40% Behind when 3
textures are used during one pass, and falls OVER 60%!
behind when using quad texturing.

Compare the scores against your cards and see for
yourself...

And the referenced NV40 has 4 more pixel piplines
and more advanced GDDRIII !!

Now I look at the information above and wonder to myself
is high Pixel Shader performance worth more to me then
solid multitexturing performance? NO WAY!!!

Sure you happen to get 8 more "AVERAGE" fps from Aquamark3
with the 6800, but when the "Massive Overdraw" happends, the card
still bites the dust, while the X800 Pro manages to cut through it
quite nicely.

So little tricks here and their to push the framerate up on NV40
give it an appealing look in most benchmarks rough averages but
when the heat is truly on, the 6800 wimpers and cowers away.

If the Non-Ultra has such low multi-texturing performance im
doubting that the GT or Ultra are really going to raise this
bar?

Thanks for readingFlux0r
X800 Pro
__________________
Dual Athlon MP 2400+ @ 2.2ghz (cpufsb)
BBA Radeon 9800 Pro 128 @ 420/340
512mb's Mushkin PC2400 DDR
1x WD360GD Raptor 36gb
NEC P1150 21" CRT
mpFLUX is offline   Reply With Quote