3Digest, August 2007
Monthly drivers report and popular 3D
accelerators comparison
Monthy 3Digest is the project of iXBT.com and Digit-Life.com dedicated to informing you about the performance of a large number of graphics cards under Windows XP in the past month.
This issue is dedicated to drivers released from the 15th of July 2007 to the 15th of August 2007. Traditionally our 3Digest informs you about the best price/performance ratios available in the market. Another very important part of any issue is cards' 3D graphics quality shown on the example of a wide selection of games.
It's our 87th issue of 3Digest.
August 2007
For this issue and on we have replaced the F.E.A.R. benchmark with the World In Conflict beta DX10 tests under MS Windows Vista.
Attention! This digest contains benchmarking results for PCI-E cards only. The final AGP benchmarking was conducted in March 2006.
CONTENTS
- Testbed configurations and test software
- Tested videocards list
- What's new in 3Digest
- Test summary diagrams and digest bottom line
- 3D accelerator rating calculations for the end of the month
- Screenshot gallery
- Game Quality Section
- Game Quality Control Section
1. Testbed configuration
- Intel Core2 Duo (775 Socket) based machine
- Intel Core2 Duo Extreme X6800 (2930 MHz) (L2=4096K) CPU;
- EVGA nForce 680i SLI motherboard on NVIDIA nForce 680i;
- 2GB DDR2 SDRAM Corsair 1142MHz (CAS (tCL)=5; RAS to CAS delay (tRCD)=5; Row Precharge (tRP)=5; tRAS=15);
- WD Caviar SE WD1600JD 160GB SATA HDD.
The testbed has the following OS installed:
- Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2, DirectX 9.0c,
- Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit, DirectX 10;
We used theDell 3007WFP monitor. (30").
The list of benchmarks is here
2. Graphics card list
Below is a list of graphics cards that we tested linked to the respective
3Digest feature description pages.
You can see the quality of 3D produced by tested cards
in our monthly updated Screenshot gallery.
Cards list:
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON X1300 XT 256MB DDR2 2.0ns (500/900 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON X1650 PRO 256MB DDR 1.4ns (590/1380 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON X1950 PRO 256MB GDDR3 1.4ns (580/1400 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON X1950 PRO 512MB GDDR3 1.4ns (573/1360 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON X1950 XTX 512MB GDDR4 0.9ns (650/2000 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 2400 XT 256MB GDDR3 1.2ns (700/1600 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 2600 PRO 256MB GDDR2 2.0ns (600/1000 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 2600 PRO 256MB GDDR3 1.2ns (700/1400 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 2600 XT 256MB GDDR4 0.9ns (800/2200 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 2900 XT 512MB GDDR3 1.0ns (743/1660 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7600GT 256MB GDDR3 1.4ns (560/1400
MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8500 GT 256MB GDDR2 2.5ns (450/800 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8600 GT 256MB GDDR3 1.2ns (560/1560 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8600 GTS 256MB GDDR3 1.0ns (720/2200 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 7900 GS 256MB GDDR3 1.4ns (450/1320 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB GDDR3 1.2ns (512/1600 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB GDDR3 1.2ns (512/1600 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB GDDR3 1.1ns (575/1800 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8800 Ultra 768MB GDDR3 0.8ns (612/2160 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI 2x768MB GDDR3 0.8ns
(2x612/2160 MHz)
Archive
(graphics cards, information on which is no longer updated)
3. August 2007 news and the current matters
Added a number of new graphics cards (marked "NEW").
- 3.1. The following drivers were released from July 15, 2007 to
August 15, 2007:
- NVIDIA ForceWare for all NVIDIA cards:
- ATI Catalyst for all ATI cards:
- 3.2. This month we used 163.44 drivers for NVIDIA-based card summaries,
7.8 drivers for ATI-based card summaries.
4. Summary diagrams of graphics cards performance with the latest
drivers for August 2007.
All willing to see the complete results in Excel 2003 format can
download this RAR
3.0 or ZIP
archive.
If you are familiar with 3D graphics, you will be able to draw all
the conclusions yourself after looking at the charts provided. Those
interested in our judgement of test results should see reviews dedicated
to specific GPUs (see our 3D graphics section).
And for newbies and those who has just started choosing a graphics
card we'll provide some more detailed explanations.
First of all, you should take a look at our brief references of
modern graphics card series and their respective GPUs. Note clock
rates, shader support and pipeline architecture.
Reference for NVIDIA GeForce 7300-7600-7800-7900-8800 series
Secondly, in our 3D graphics section all
newbies can read about the basics of 3D (this knowledge will be required
anyway, because you'll surely try to adjust some game settings: textures,
lighting, etc.) Besides, newbies should read separate reviews dedicated
to new products. There are just two GPU vendors: ATI (recently merged
with AMD under its brand) and NVIDIA. Thus, all information is generally
separated in two parts.
Thirdly, let's see the charts and make conclusions.
- 4.1. S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
- 4.2. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (No HDR)
- 4.3. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (HDR)
- 4.4. Call Of Juarez
- 4.5. Prey
- 4.6. 3DMark05 MARKS
- 4.7. Company Of Heroes
- 4.8. World In Conflict (DX10)
- 4.9. Serious Sam II (No HDR)
- 4.10. Serious Sam II (HDR)
- 4.11. 3DMark 06, Shader Model 2.0 MARKS
- 4.12. 3DMark 06, Shader Model 3.0 MARKS
- 4.13.
Archive (information from the previous 3Digests absent in this issue)
- 4.14. Notes on graphics cards performance with the latest drivers:
- If a particular card is not in the summary, i.e. its results
are either 0, or 1, it means the given benchmark hasn't work
or has worked incorrectly with this card.
- If you imagine a line connecting ends of columns representing
test results on a chart, you can judge if a game is critical
to a card or a CPU. If this curve is "convex" and
many cards perform similarly, it means at this resolution and
under this load performance is bottlenecked by system resources,
not graphics card potential. If, vice versa, the curve is "concave"
and performance drops quickly as card potential reduces, it
means the game puts heavy load on graphics cards and depends
exclusively on their potential.
- We must state the strange (to put it mildly) quality of AMD/ATI
drivers. It seems like developers can't fix older bugs without
introducing the newer ones. This time, with the 7.8 version,
AA stopped working in CoH, so its performance with AA+AF even
exceeded slightly the performance without AA+AF. We have double-
and triple-checked this. Why has it happened? Ask AMD.
5. 3D accelerator ratings calculations for the end of the month
Calculations were based on gaming benchmark results as well
as the results from 3DMark06 new tests (ATI CATALYST 7.8, NVIDIA
ForceWare 163.44).
All willing to conduct their own rating calculations with own
values are invited to download this Excel XP table in RAR
3.0 or ZIP
format.
The method of rating calculation is described here.
Calculations were conducted considering the following assumptions:
- Percentage of performance and quality demand ratio:
- performance priority - 60%
- quality priority - 40%
- Only the HIGHEST resolution available in games was used to
calculate prospect ratings.
- The usability rating indicates performance and features of
a card (numerator) related to its price (denominator).
According to your wishes, we separated ratings into
two groups: the first gathers all benchmarks, and the second contains
only the gaming tests without m3DMark05/06. Disbelieving the synthetic
tests, many think the second group is of higher importance.
Core2 Duo X6800 based testbed:
Usability Rating:
GAMING ONLY usability rating
| # |
Card |
Usability rating |
Prospect rating |
Approx. price |
| 01. |
8600 GT 256MB, 560/1560 |
285
|
391
|
129
|
| 02. |
8800 GTS 320MB, 512/1600 |
275
|
655
|
345
|
| 03. |
HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 700/1400 |
273
|
363
|
110
|
| 04. |
X1950 PRO 256MB, 580/1400 |
270
|
424
|
149
|
| 05. |
X1300 XT 256MB 500/800 |
259
|
252
|
57
|
| 06. |
8800 GTS 640MB, 512/1600 |
256
|
736
|
440
|
| 07. |
8600 GTS 256MB, 720/2200 |
251
|
459
|
201
|
| 08. |
X1650 PRO 256MB 590/1380 |
246
|
309
|
80
|
| 09. |
8800 GTX 768MB, 575/1800 |
245
|
867
|
610
|
| 10. |
HD 2900 XT 512MB, 750/1660 |
244
|
702
|
419
|
| 11. |
HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/2200 |
242
|
403
|
155
|
| 12. |
HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 600/1000 |
237
|
327
|
100
|
| 13. |
X1950 PRO 512MB, 575/1370 |
224
|
449
|
195
|
| 14. |
8800 Ultra 768MB, 612/2160 |
224
|
892
|
700
|
| 15. |
8500 GT 256MB, 450/800 |
222
|
273
|
82
|
| 16. |
HD 2400 XT 256MB, 700/1600 |
208
|
255
|
73
|
| 17. |
7900 GS 256MB, 450/1320 |
172
|
313
|
129
|
| 18. |
X1950 XTX 512MB, 650/2000 |
159
|
534
|
368
|
| 19. |
7600 GT 256MB, 560/1400 |
145
|
274
|
118
|
| 20. |
8800 Ultra SLI 2x768MB, 612/2160 |
117
|
960
|
1400
|
GENERAL usability rating
| # |
Card |
Usability rating |
Prospect rating |
Approx. price |
| 01. |
HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 700/1400 |
864
|
649
|
110
|
| 02. |
8600 GT 256MB, 560/1560 |
860
|
687
|
129
|
| 03. |
8800 GTS 320MB, 512/1600 |
817
|
1147
|
345
|
| 04. |
X1950 PRO 256MB, 580/1400 |
815
|
746
|
149
|
| 05. |
X1300 XT 256MB 500/800 |
779
|
439
|
57
|
| 06. |
8600 GTS 256MB, 720/2200 |
766
|
813
|
201
|
| 07. |
HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/2200 |
756
|
721
|
155
|
| 08. |
HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 600/1000 |
753
|
587
|
100
|
| 09. |
HD 2900 XT 512MB, 750/1660 |
749
|
1242
|
419
|
| 10. |
X1650 PRO 256MB 590/1380 |
741
|
532
|
80
|
| 11. |
8800 GTS 640MB, 512/1600 |
738
|
1261
|
440
|
| 12. |
8800 GTX 768MB, 575/1800 |
692
|
1472
|
610
|
| 13. |
X1950 PRO 512MB, 575/1370 |
683
|
791
|
195
|
| 14. |
8500 GT 256MB, 450/800 |
663
|
478
|
82
|
| 15. |
HD 2400 XT 256MB, 700/1600 |
650
|
454
|
73
|
| 16. |
8800 Ultra 768MB, 612/2160 |
641
|
1525
|
700
|
| 17. |
X1950 XTX 512MB, 650/2000 |
483
|
939
|
368
|
| 18. |
7900 GS 256MB, 450/1320 |
453
|
510
|
129
|
| 19. |
7600 GT 256MB, 560/1400 |
383
|
445
|
118
|
| 20. |
8800 Ultra SLI 2x768MB, 612/2160 |
357
|
1688
|
1400
|
Prospect Rating:
GAMING ONLY prospect rating
| # |
Card |
Usability rating |
Prospect rating |
Approx. price |
| 01. |
8800 Ultra SLI 2x768MB, 612/2160 |
117
|
960
|
1400
|
| 02. |
8800 Ultra 768MB, 612/2160 |
224
|
892
|
700
|
| 03. |
8800 GTX 768MB, 575/1800 |
245
|
867
|
610
|
| 04. |
8800 GTS 640MB, 512/1600 |
256
|
736
|
440
|
| 05. |
HD 2900 XT 512MB, 750/1660 |
244
|
702
|
419
|
| 06. |
8800 GTS 320MB, 512/1600 |
275
|
655
|
345
|
| 07. |
X1950 XTX 512MB, 650/2000 |
159
|
534
|
368
|
| 08. |
8600 GTS 256MB, 720/2200 |
251
|
459
|
201
|
| 09. |
X1950 PRO 512MB, 575/1370 |
224
|
449
|
195
|
| 10. |
X1950 PRO 256MB, 580/1400 |
270
|
424
|
149
|
| 11. |
HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/2200 |
242
|
403
|
155
|
| 12. |
8600 GT 256MB, 560/1560 |
285
|
391
|
129
|
| 13. |
HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 700/1400 |
273
|
363
|
110
|
| 14. |
HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 600/1000 |
237
|
327
|
100
|
| 15. |
7900 GS 256MB, 450/1320 |
172
|
313
|
129
|
| 16. |
X1650 PRO 256MB 590/1380 |
246
|
309
|
80
|
| 17. |
7600 GT 256MB, 560/1400 |
145
|
274
|
118
|
| 18. |
8500 GT 256MB, 450/800 |
222
|
273
|
82
|
| 19. |
HD 2400 XT 256MB, 700/1600 |
208
|
255
|
73
|
| 20. |
X1300 XT 256MB 500/800 |
259
|
252
|
57
|
GENERAL prospect rating
| # |
Card |
Usability rating |
Prospect rating |
Approx. price |
| 01. |
8800 Ultra SLI 2x768MB, 612/2160 |
357
|
1688
|
1400
|
| 02. |
8800 Ultra 768MB, 612/2160 |
641
|
1525
|
700
|
| 03. |
8800 GTX 768MB, 575/1800 |
692
|
1472
|
610
|
| 04. |
8800 GTS 640MB, 512/1600 |
738
|
1261
|
440
|
| 05. |
HD 2900 XT 512MB, 750/1660 |
749
|
1242
|
419
|
| 06. |
8800 GTS 320MB, 512/1600 |
817
|
1147
|
345
|
| 07. |
X1950 XTX 512MB, 650/2000 |
483
|
939
|
368
|
| 08. |
8600 GTS 256MB, 720/2200 |
766
|
813
|
201
|
| 09. |
X1950 PRO 512MB, 575/1370 |
683
|
791
|
195
|
| 10. |
X1950 PRO 256MB, 580/1400 |
815
|
746
|
149
|
| 11. |
HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/2200 |
756
|
721
|
155
|
| 12. |
8600 GT 256MB, 560/1560 |
860
|
687
|
129
|
| 13. |
HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 700/1400 |
864
|
649
|
110
|
| 14. |
HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 600/1000 |
753
|
587
|
100
|
| 15. |
X1650 PRO 256MB 590/1380 |
741
|
532
|
80
|
| 16. |
7900 GS 256MB, 450/1320 |
453
|
510
|
129
|
| 17. |
8500 GT 256MB, 450/800 |
663
|
478
|
82
|
| 18. |
HD 2400 XT 256MB, 700/1600 |
650
|
454
|
73
|
| 19. |
7600 GT 256MB, 560/1400 |
383
|
445
|
118
|
| 20. |
X1300 XT 256MB 500/800 |
779
|
439
|
57
|
Ingame quality
6. Games screenshot gallery
All test screenshots are compiled into a gallery where you can
qualify the work of a chosen videocard. All shots were taken at
the same 1024x768 resolution at the maximum quality. Screenshot
gallery
7. Game Artefacts Gallery
Game
Quality Section
7.1. Game bugs archive
Game
quality archive
8. Game Quality Control
Game
Quality Control
We thank all the companies that provided
us with graphics cards and other equipment for our 3Digest, including:
Chaintech Russia
and personally Alexander Petrushin,
Zotac,
BFG Russia
and personally Mikhail Proshletsov,
EVGA Russia
and personally Victoria Nikolaeva,
Foxconn Russia,
MSI Russia,
Gainward,
HIS (and
personally Peter Yueng)
"NVIDIA Russia",
AMD Russia,
"Sapphire Technology
Russia",
"ASUStek Russia",
The PSU for the testbed was kindly provided by HIPER
|
|
The Dell 3007WFP monitor was kindly provided by NVIDIA
|
|
