i3DSpeed: December 2007
Monthly drivers report and popular 3D
accelerators comparison
The i3DSpeed, a project of iXBT.com and Digit-Life.com, is dedicated to informing you about performance of a large number of graphics cards under Windows XP and Vista.
This issue is dedicated to drivers released from the 15th of November to the 15th of December 2007. Traditionally, we offer you summaries of performance of the popular graphics cards, and also inform you about the best price/performance deals in the market.
Issue #2(91)
December 2007
We have changed the testbed configuration; added RADEON HD 2900 XT CrossFire and GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB test results.
Contents
- Testbed configurations and test software
- Tested videocards list
- i3DSpeed News
- Test summary diagrams and digest bottom line
- 3D accelerator rating calculations for the end of the month
1. Testbed configuration
- Intel Core2 Duo (775 Socket) based machine
- Intel Core2 Extreme QX9650 (3000 MHz) (L2=8192K) CPU;
- Gigabyte GA-X38-DQ6 motherboard on Intel X38;
- 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.
Operating systems:
- Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2, DirectX 9.0c,
- Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit, DirectX 10;
Monitor: 30" Dell 3007WFP (30").
Benchmark list
2. Graphics cards
Below is a list of graphics cards that we tested linked to the respective
3Digest feature description pages.
In the brackets: core clock rate; ROP/TMU, core clock rate; shader
unit, effective memory clock rate):
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 2400 XT 256MB GDDR3 1.2ns (700/700/1600 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 2600 PRO 256MB GDDR2 2.0ns (600/600/1000 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 2600 PRO 256MB GDDR3 1.2ns (700/700/1400 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 2600 XT 256MB GDDR3 1.4ns (800/800/1400 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 2600 XT 256MB GDDR3 1.0ns (830/830/1920 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 2600 XT 256MB GDDR4 0.9ns (800/800/2200 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 2900 PRO 512MB GDDR3 1.0ns (600/600/1600 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 3850 256MB GDDR3 1.0ns (670/670/1660 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 3850 512MB GDDR3 1.0ns (720/720/1800 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 3870 512MB GDDR4 0.8ns (775/775/2250 MHz)
- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 2900 XT 512MB GDDR3 1.0ns (743/743/1660 MHz)
PCI-E-ATI RADEON HD 2900 XT CrossFire 2x512MB GDDR3 1.0ns (2x743/743/1660
MHz)- PCI-E-ATI
RADEON HD 2900 XT 1024MB GDDR3 0.8ns (743/743/2000 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8500 GT 256MB GDDR2 2.5ns (450/900/800 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8600 GT 256MB GDDR3 1.2ns (560/1120/1560 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8600 GTS 256MB GDDR3 1.0ns (720/1440/2200 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8800 GT 512MB GDDR3 1.0ns (600/1512/1800 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8800 GT 512MB GDDR3 1.0ns (700/1674/2000 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB GDDR3 1.2ns (512/1188/1600 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB GDDR3 1.0ns (650/1620/1940 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB GDDR3 1.2ns (512/1188/1600 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB GDDR3 1.1ns (575/1350/1800 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8800 Ultra 768MB GDDR3 0.8ns (612/1512/2160 MHz)
- PCI-E-NVIDIA
GeForce 8800 Ultra 768MB GDDR3 0.8ns (655/1620/2250 MHz)
Archive
(graphics cards, information on which is no longer updated)
3. December 2007 News
Added a number of new graphics cards (marked "NEW").
- 3.1. The following drivers were released from November 15, 2007
to December 15, 2007:
- NVIDIA ForceWare for all NVIDIA cards:
- ATI Catalyst for all ATI cards:
- 3.2. This month we used 169.21/25 drivers for NVIDIA-based card
summaries, 7.12 drivers for ATI-based card summaries.
4. Summary charts of graphics cards performance with the latest
drivers
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.
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 like textures, lighting, etc.) Besides, newbies
should read separate reviews dedicated to new products. There are
just two major GPU vendors: ATI (recently merged with AMD under its
brand) and NVIDIA. Thus, all information is generally separated in
two parts. We also publish monthly i3D-Speed
articles (one of which you are reading now) that sum up all comparisons
of graphics cards for various price ranges. In the February
2007 issue we analyzed dependence of modern graphics cards on
processors without antialiasing and anisotropic filtering. Similar
tests with AA and AF were conducted in March
2007.
Now let's see the charts and make conclusions.
- 4.1. S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
- 4.4. Call Of Juarez
- 4.3. CRYSIS DirectX 9.0 (high), RESCUE
- 4.4. CRYSIS DirectX 9.0 (high), HARBOR
- 4.5. CRYSIS DirectX 10.0 (Very High), RESCUE
- 4.6. CRYSIS DirectX 10.0 (Very High), HARBOR
- 4.7. Company Of Heroes
- 4.8. 3DMark05 MARKS
- 4.9. 3DMark 06, Shader Model 2.0 MARKS
- 4.10. 3DMark 06, Shader Model 3.0 MARKS
- 4.11. Archive
(information from the previous 3Digests absent in this issue)
- 4.12. 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.
- Note that AA stopped working in CoH with ATI RADEON cards
starting with CATALYST 7.8 drivers. As a result, its performance
with AA+AF become even slightly higher than performance without
it.
- Also, version 7.12 introduced an issue related to enabling
AA with RADEON cards in CRYSIS. With much efforts, it can still
be enabled.
- Even with the latest 7.12 drivers CRYSIS doesn't work completely
stable with RADEON cards. There are also rendering artefacts.
AMD should really improve drivers to fix all the bugs.
5. 3D accelerator ratings calculations for the end of the month
Calculations are based on gaming benchmark results as well as
the results from the new 3DMark06 tests (ATI CATALYST 7.12, NVIDIA
ForceWare 169.21/25).
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 Extreme QX9650-based testbed.
"Usability" Rating:
GAMING ONLY usability rating
| # |
Card |
Usability rating |
Prospect rating |
Approx. price |
| 01. |
8800 GT 512MB, 600/1512/1800 |
151
|
473
|
355
|
| 02. |
8800 GT 512MB, 700/1674/2000 |
151
|
500
|
398
|
| 03. |
HD 2900 PRO 512MB, 600/600/1600 |
146
|
372
|
225
|
| 04. |
HD 3850 512MB, 720/720/1800 |
144
|
402
|
266
|
| 05. |
HD 3850 256MB, 670/670/1660 |
132
|
367
|
249
|
| 06. |
HD 3870 512MB, 775/775/2250 |
131
|
428
|
321
|
| 07. |
8800 GTS 512MB, 650/1620/1940 |
121
|
508
|
500
|
| 08. |
8600 GTS 256MB, 720/1440/2200 |
99
|
235
|
157
|
| 09. |
8800 GTX 768MB, 575/1350/1800 |
98
|
520
|
630
|
| 10. |
HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/800/1400 |
96
|
196
|
107
|
| 11. |
HD 2900 XT 512MB, 750/750/1660 |
94
|
421
|
438
|
| 12. |
HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/800/2200 |
93
|
221
|
138
|
| 13. |
8800 Ultra 768MB, 655/1660/2250 |
92
|
568
|
780
|
| 14. |
8800 GTS 640MB, 512/1188/1600 |
90
|
431
|
480
|
| 15. |
HD 2900 XT 1024MB, 750/750/2000 |
90
|
450
|
510
|
| 16. |
HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 700/700/1400 |
87
|
185
|
98
|
| 17. |
8800 Ultra 768MB, 612/1512/2160 |
86
|
548
|
782
|
| 18. |
8600 GT 256MB, 560/1120/1560 |
84
|
192
|
113
|
| 19. |
HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 600/700/1000 |
84
|
172
|
81
|
| 20. |
8800 GTS 320MB, 512/1188/1600 |
84
|
341
|
393
|
| 21. |
8500 GT 256MB, 450/900/800 |
77
|
159
|
70
|
| 22. |
HD 2400 XT 256MB, 700/700/1600 |
71
|
148
|
66
|
| 23. |
HD 2900 XT CrossFire 2x512MB, 750/750/1660 |
64
|
495
|
876
|
GENERAL usability rating
| # |
Card |
Usability rating |
Prospect rating |
Approx. price |
| 01. |
HD 2900 PRO 512MB, 600/600/1600 |
756
|
871
|
225
|
| 02. |
HD 3850 512MB, 720/720/1800 |
730
|
933
|
266
|
| 03. |
8800 GT 512MB, 600/1512/1800 |
728
|
1075
|
355
|
| 04. |
8800 GT 512MB, 700/1674/2000 |
722
|
1136
|
398
|
| 05. |
HD 3850 256MB, 670/670/1660 |
675
|
858
|
249
|
| 06. |
HD 3870 512MB, 775/775/2250 |
657
|
985
|
321
|
| 07. |
8800 GTS 512MB, 650/1620/1940 |
577
|
1148
|
500
|
| 08. |
HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/800/1400 |
549
|
484
|
107
|
| 09. |
8600 GTS 256MB, 720/1440/2200 |
544
|
573
|
157
|
| 10. |
HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/800/2200 |
513
|
537
|
138
|
| 11. |
HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 700/700/1400 |
509
|
455
|
98
|
| 12. |
HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 600/700/1000 |
489
|
421
|
81
|
| 13. |
HD 2900 XT 512MB, 750/750/1660 |
479
|
976
|
438
|
| 14. |
8600 GT 256MB, 560/1120/1560 |
472
|
468
|
113
|
| 15. |
8800 GTX 768MB, 575/1350/1800 |
454
|
1154
|
630
|
| 16. |
HD 2900 XT 1024MB, 750/750/2000 |
445
|
1024
|
510
|
| 17. |
8800 GTS 640MB, 512/1188/1600 |
436
|
972
|
480
|
| 18. |
8800 GTS 320MB, 512/1188/1600 |
433
|
820
|
393
|
| 19. |
8800 Ultra 768MB, 655/1660/2250 |
428
|
1265
|
780
|
| 20. |
8500 GT 256MB, 450/900/800 |
418
|
371
|
70
|
| 21. |
8800 Ultra 768MB, 612/1512/2160 |
402
|
1221
|
782
|
| 22. |
HD 2400 XT 256MB, 700/700/1600 |
397
|
349
|
66
|
| 23. |
HD 2900 XT CrossFire 2x512MB, 750/750/1660 |
325
|
1168
|
876
|
Prospect rating:
Gaming-only prospect rating
| # |
Card |
Usability rating |
Prospect rating |
Approx. price |
| 01. |
8800 Ultra 768MB, 655/1660/2250 |
92
|
568
|
780
|
| 02. |
8800 Ultra 768MB, 612/1512/2160 |
86
|
548
|
782
|
| 03. |
8800 GTX 768MB, 575/1350/1800 |
98
|
520
|
630
|
| 04. |
8800 GTS 512MB, 650/1620/1940 |
121
|
508
|
500
|
| 05. |
8800 GT 512MB, 700/1674/2000 |
151
|
500
|
398
|
| 06. |
HD 2900 XT CrossFire 2x512MB, 750/750/1660 |
64
|
495
|
876
|
| 07. |
8800 GT 512MB, 600/1512/1800 |
151
|
473
|
355
|
| 08. |
HD 2900 XT 1024MB, 750/750/2000 |
90
|
450
|
510
|
| 09. |
8800 GTS 640MB, 512/1188/1600 |
90
|
431
|
480
|
| 10. |
HD 3870 512MB, 775/775/2250 |
131
|
428
|
321
|
| 11. |
HD 2900 XT 512MB, 750/750/1660 |
94
|
421
|
438
|
| 12. |
HD 3850 512MB, 720/720/1800 |
144
|
402
|
266
|
| 13. |
HD 2900 PRO 512MB, 600/600/1600 |
146
|
372
|
225
|
| 14. |
HD 3850 256MB, 670/670/1660 |
132
|
367
|
249
|
| 15. |
8800 GTS 320MB, 512/1188/1600 |
84
|
341
|
393
|
| 16. |
8600 GTS 256MB, 720/1440/2200 |
99
|
235
|
157
|
| 17. |
HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/800/2200 |
93
|
221
|
138
|
| 18. |
HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/800/1400 |
96
|
196
|
107
|
| 19. |
8600 GT 256MB, 560/1120/1560 |
84
|
192
|
113
|
| 20. |
HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 700/700/1400 |
87
|
185
|
98
|
| 21. |
HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 600/700/1000 |
84
|
172
|
81
|
| 22. |
8500 GT 256MB, 450/900/800 |
77
|
159
|
70
|
| 23. |
HD 2400 XT 256MB, 700/700/1600 |
71
|
148
|
66
|
General prospect rating
| # |
Card |
Usability rating |
Prospect rating |
Approx. price |
| 01. |
8800 Ultra 768MB, 655/1660/2250 |
428
|
1265
|
780
|
| 02. |
8800 Ultra 768MB, 612/1512/2160 |
402
|
1221
|
782
|
| 03. |
HD 2900 XT CrossFire 2x512MB, 750/750/1660 |
325
|
1168
|
876
|
| 04. |
8800 GTX 768MB, 575/1350/1800 |
454
|
1154
|
630
|
| 05. |
8800 GTS 512MB, 650/1620/1940 |
577
|
1148
|
500
|
| 06. |
8800 GT 512MB, 700/1674/2000 |
722
|
1136
|
398
|
| 07. |
8800 GT 512MB, 600/1512/1800 |
728
|
1075
|
355
|
| 08. |
HD 2900 XT 1024MB, 750/750/2000 |
445
|
1024
|
510
|
| 09. |
HD 3870 512MB, 775/775/2250 |
657
|
985
|
321
|
| 10. |
HD 2900 XT 512MB, 750/750/1660 |
479
|
976
|
438
|
| 11. |
8800 GTS 640MB, 512/1188/1600 |
436
|
972
|
480
|
| 12. |
HD 3850 512MB, 720/720/1800 |
730
|
933
|
266
|
| 13. |
HD 2900 PRO 512MB, 600/600/1600 |
756
|
871
|
225
|
| 14. |
HD 3850 256MB, 670/670/1660 |
675
|
858
|
249
|
| 15. |
8800 GTS 320MB, 512/1188/1600 |
433
|
820
|
393
|
| 16. |
8600 GTS 256MB, 720/1440/2200 |
544
|
573
|
157
|
| 17. |
HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/800/2200 |
513
|
537
|
138
|
| 18. |
HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/800/1400 |
549
|
484
|
107
|
| 19. |
8600 GT 256MB, 560/1120/1560 |
472
|
468
|
113
|
| 20. |
HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 700/700/1400 |
509
|
455
|
98
|
| 21. |
HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 600/700/1000 |
489
|
421
|
81
|
| 22. |
8500 GT 256MB, 450/900/800 |
418
|
371
|
70
|
| 23. |
HD 2400 XT 256MB, 700/700/1600 |
397
|
349
|
66
|
We thank companies that provided us with graphics
cards and other equipment:
TUL (PowerColor) Russia
Chaintech Russia
Zotac,
BFG Russia
and Mikhail Proshletsov,
EVGA Russia and
Victoria Nikolaeva,
Foxconn Russia
and Alexander Troukhachev,
MSI Russia,
Gainward,
HIS and
Vitaly Milov,
NVIDIA Russia,
AMD Russia,
Sapphire Technology
Russia,
ASUStek Russia,
PSU kindly provided by HIPER
|
|
Dell 3007WFP monitor kindly provided by NVIDIA
|
06.01.2008
|
