HEXUS.bang4buck
HEXUS.bang4buck
| Graphics cards | AMD Radeon HD 2600 XT GDDR4 256MiB | HIS X1650XT iSilenceII 256MiB | ASUS EAX1950 PRO 256MiB | XFX GeForce 8600 GT XXX 256MiB | ASUS EN8600GTS 256MiB | Inno3D iChiLL 7900GS Arctic Cooling Silencer 6 256MiB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual aggregate marks at 1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF | 114.34 | 144.08 | 230.31 | 169.26 | 184.91 | 263.87 |
| Aggregate marks, normalised*, at 1280x1024 | 81.51 | 126.13 | 205.16 | 157.51 | 174.9 | 221.94 |
| Current price | £87 | £75 | £99 | £115 | £120 | £101 |
| HEXUS.bang4buck score | 0.94 | 1.68 | 2.07 | 1.37 | 1.46 | 2.20 |
| Acceptable framerate (Av. 60FPS) at 1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF | No (SC, FC, Q4) | No (SC, FC, Q4) | Yes | No (SC, FC) | No (SC, FC) | Yes |
* The normalisation refers to taking playable framerate into account. Should a card benchmark at over 60FPS in any one game, the extra FPS counts as half. Similarly, should a card benchmark lower, say at 40FPS, we deduct half the difference from its average framerate and the desired 60FPS, giving it a bang4buck score of 30 marks. The minimum framerate, then, can be 20FPS, as that will score 0.
A couple of concrete examples. Should a card score 120FPS, we count it as 90FPS (120 - (120-60)/2) as only half the framerate above 60FPS is counted for the bang4buck. Similarly, should it score 30FPS we count it as only 15FPS (30 + (30-60)/2).
The reasoning behind such calculation lies with playable framerates. Should card A score 110FPS in a benchmark and card B 160, then card B would normally receive an extra 50 marks in our bang4buck assessment, even though both cards produce perfectly playable framerates and anything above 60FPS is a bonus and not a necessity for most.
However, without normalisation, the bang4buck total would be identical if, in another benchmark, card A scored a smooth 70FPS and card B an unplayable 20FPS, as both aggregate to 180 marks - and that would be nonsensical since the games-playing experiences would be vastly different. Clearly, card A was better because it ran smoothly in both games. In our revised aggregation, card A would receive 150 marks (85 + 65) and card B 100 (100 + 0).
In effect, we're including a desired average framerate, in this case 60, and penalising lower performance while giving higher-than 60FPS framerates half as much credit as the framerate up to 60FPS. If that doesn't make sense or you have issue with it, please hit the HEXUS.community.
The HEXUS.bang4buck graph simply divides the normalised marks by the current price, to give you an easy-to-understand metric that takes value into account.
The comparatively low street price of the Radeon HD 2600 XT is compromised by lacklustre - and that's being kind - performance exhibited in our benchmarks. Current performance in Far Cry, in particular, drags the normalised HEXUS.bang4buck graph down to an unacceptable level.
AMD needs to fully exploit the decent hardware with drivers to match - and that's doesn't seem to be happening right now.
The HEXUS.bang4buck graph doesn't account for non-3D features such as Avivo HD; we'll look at that in due course. Further, the metric takes DX9 into account, yet doesn't factor in possible performance advantages when running DX10 code under Vista.
Hopping on over to the Radeon HD 2400 XT's HEXUS.bang4buck metric.
| Graphics cards | AMD Radeon HD 2400 XT GDDR3 256MiB | Palit GeForce 8500 GT 256MiB |
|---|---|---|
| Actual aggregate marks at 1024x768 0xAA 0xAF | 139.46 | 144.64 |
| Aggregate marks, normalised*, at 1280x1024 | 119.19 | 125.76 |
| Current price | £46 | £52 |
| HEXUS.bang4buck score | 2.59 | 2.42 |
| Acceptable framerate (Av. 60FPS) at 1024x768 0xAA 0xAF | No (SC, FC, Q4) | No (SC, FC) |
Remember that the numbers aren't cross-comparable with the HD Radeon 2600 XT's. The resolution is lower in the 2400 XT's case. We noted that pricing and performance of the 2400 XT and GeForce 8500 GT were similar, so it's no surprise to the see similar scores on the bang4buck graph. And don't overlook the fact that neither budget card reaches the 60FPS mark, even at the 1024x768 setting and even though we're using old-ish titles.
