System setup and notes
|Graphics card(s)||Inno3D GeForce 7950GT Accelero S1M 256MiB (560/1500)||ECS N8800GTS-320MX 320MiB (513/1600)||ASUS EAX1950Pro 256MiB (580.5/1404)|
|CPU||Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2.93GHz, 4MiB L2 cache, LGA775)|
|Motherboard||EVGA nForce 680i SLI||ASUS P5W-DH Deluxe (975X+ICH7R)|
|Memory||2GiB (2 x 1024) Corsair PC8500 EPP||2GiB (2 x 1024) Patriot XLBK|
|Memory timings and speed||4-4-4-12 2T @ 800MHz (PC6400)|
|PSU||FSP Epsilon 600W|
|Monitor||Dell 2405FPW - 1920x1200|
|Disk drive(s)||Seagate 160GB SATAII (ST3160812AS)|
|Mainboard software||NVIDIA platform driver 9.53||Intel Inf 188.8.131.522|
|Graphics driver||ForceWare 93.71||ForceWare 97.02||CATALYST 7.1|
|Operating System||Windows XP Professional, w/ SP2, 32-bit|
Far Cry v1.33
Quake 4 v1.30
Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory v1.05
NotesWe've decided to compare the Inno3D GeForce 7950GT Accelero S1M 256MiB against a couple of card that, on first glance, don't appear to be its immediate competitors.
The reason for choosing the £180 ECS GeForce 8800 GTS 320 and the £115-priced ASUS EAX1950Pro lies with determining just how much performance benefit/deficit you receive by spending £25 more or £40 less. The point here is to determine whether the Inno3D card offers performance value-for-money, and that's best achieved by looking at SKUs in the neighbouring price brackets than by comparing to a whole host of cards on the same GPU: they will offer near-identical performance, anyway.
Benchmarks were conducted with our premium testing platform. As such, our trio of games were run at 1600x1200 4xAA 8xAF and 1920x1200 4xAA 8xAF, although Quake 4 was run with 16xAF.