Benchmarks I
|
Let's investigate performance under 3DMark 2000. We'll be conducting tests at 1024x768x32, 1280x768x32, and 1600x1200x32 respectively. This should give you an idea of how the ASUS handles DX7-compliant benchmarks.
We start off with 1024x768x16 at the top, 3DMark 2000's native benchmarking resolution, and carry on to 1280x1024x32 in the middle and 1600x1200x32 at the bottom. Our ASUS overclocked speeds, reflected by 318/740 clocks respectively, only pay dividends as the test becomes increasingly card-limited at higher resolutions. The old stalwart, the Ti 500, puts up a decent showing in this test. One aspect to note is that the MSI Ti 4600 was a shade faster at stock clocks, mainly due to the RAM running at 660MHz as opposed to the ASUS' 648MHz. Onto the more recent 3DMark2001SE, one whose native benchmarking resolution is 1024x768x32. The use of DX8.1 puts a greater emphasis on newer technologies.
Here we see the Ti 4600-based cards stretch their considerable muscle, helped enormously by the dual-vertex shading ability, one that is heavily used in the dragothic element of the benchmark. The generation gap between the Geforce4 Ti 4xxx and the Geforce3 Ti 500 is far more evident here. Let's now see what transpires when using the lovely OpenGL benchmark, Vulpine. The ability to shift polygons is paramount here so the ASUS Geforce4 should do well. Again, 1024x768x32 at the top, 1280x1024x32 in the middle, and 1600x1200x32 at the bottom of the following graph.
Results that correlate reasonably well with the 3DMark 2001SE scores. The Ti 4600 simply dominates the Geforce3 Ti500 at every resolution. Notice how little gain we experience when overclocking our ASUS as 1024x768x32, only 2.7fps. This tells us that the benchmark is heavily CPU-bound at this resolution, not often we say that about a 2.4GHz processor. The ASUS has put up an expectedly impressive showing thus far. Let's move onto real games and see if it continues to do so. |
