backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by AntDX316.. on May 18 at 4:10 AM

2.0 GHz memory frequencies? No problem.

Anh beat me to R600 benchmarks by a few mere hours -- when you snooze, you lose at DailyTech. Needless to say, I feel somewhat compelled to add my benchmarks to the mix as well. 

The system I'm using is an Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800, ASUS P5N32SLI-E with 2x2GB DDR2-800.  My tests this morning used the Catalyst 8.361 RC4 driver.  The card used was a Radeon HD 2900 XT 512MB.

Core Clock
Memory Clock
3DMark06
1280x1024
3DMark06
1600x1200
745 MHz
800 MHz
13547
10978
800 MHz
900 MHz
13855
11164
845 MHz
950 MHz
13908
11219
845 MHz
995 MHz
14005
11266

Like Anh, I was able to get pretty close to a 2.0GHz memory clock while still keeping the system stable.  For reference, my GeForce 8800 GTX (core clock at 650 MHz, memory at 2.0 GHz) scores 14128 (1280x1024) and 11867 (1600x1200) on the same system with ForceWare 158.19. 

I'm currently benchmarking the Radeon HD 2900 XTX, though I'll revist the XT if anyone has any particular requests.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

But can you disply the frames?
By KCvale on 4/25/2007 12:58:32 PM , Rating: 1
I just have to laugh at some of you guys chomping to get super-fast video cards capable of high rez 100FPS displays, overclocking for even more, etc. You can’t display those frames.
Let me rephrase, your monitor can’t display that many frames per second.

ALL monitors, CRT or LCD/Plasma, have a max screen refresh rate in Hertz for each screen resolution.
60 Hz was the standard for years, and that means 60 frames per second, period.
If you are running your monitor at 60Hz your video card could be pumping out 200 FPS and you’re still only going to get 60FPS actually displayed.

Granted, no self respecting video gamer runs at 60Hz, but what is the most your monitor can put out?

My trusty old 21” Optiquest Q115 CRT can run 32 bit color at 1280x1024 @ 85Hz, and maxes rez wise at 1600x1200 @ 72Hz.
That means my GeForce 7950GT 512MB video card already puts out more than my monitor can display in the games I play like Flatout 2 (driving game, kinda like Dukes of Hazard on Steroids).

For you flat panel users you have yet another issue to content with besides refresh rate… Response Time.
Measured in milliseconds (ms), this is the time it takes the monitor to change the states of all screen elements.
1 second is 1000 ms. The max refresh rate you can run without ghosting is 1000/(you monitors ms speed).

For example, if your monitors response time is 16ms it makes no difference if it can go to 72Hz, all you can display without ghosting because the monitor couldn’t change all the pixels in time is 60Hz, hence 60 FPS.
And don’t think 2ms monitors are any better, in fact they are a scam.
To actually benefit from a 2ms response time your monitor would also have to be capable of a 500Hz refresh rate!

I think any flat screen with a lower refresh rate than 8ms (120 FPS) is just a waste of money, and if the monitors refresh rate for the rez you want to run to is like 72Hz, that is overkill too, you could run 10ms (100FPS).

My point is, before you start spending hundreds on a video card and overclocking already fast ones, take a serious look at how many FPS your monitor can actually display at a given resolution.
I think you’ll find that all these new video cards make for impressive benchmarks, but it’s still like putting mag wheels on a ’72 Pinto.
You aren’t going to actually see any difference until monitors catch up if you have a fast system.

KC
http://vales.com/elite




RE: But can you disply the frames?
By therealnickdanger on 4/25/2007 1:10:37 PM , Rating: 3
Nice breakdown of what we already know. That's not the point, however. These new GPUs offer, or at least have the potential to offer, other enhancements such as physics accelleration, HDMI audio output, DX10 effects, as well as super number-crunching for folks that want/need it.

The fact that a graphics card can reach 145fps in Quake4 might be irrelevant compared to the output capabilities of a monitor, but people want consistent fps without dips or drops. If this mean maintaining an average or max of 145fps for the sake of achieving 63fps minimum, so be it. In addition, not all games are created equal. Getting 145fps in Quake4 means nothing if you play R6:Vegas or Oblivion.

The hardware is justified upon personal preference and usage.


RE: But can you disply the frames?
By KCvale on 4/26/2007 10:22:43 AM , Rating: 2
Oh I agree, DX10 and HDTV support will be important eventually, just not yet.

My point is why overclock a video card that already puts out more solid FPS in the games you play than you can display?

Besides "Benchmark Braging Rights" and the "Because I can" argument, redlining an expensive components tolerance for no useable gain is just foolish IMO.


RE: But can you disply the frames?
By Goty on 4/25/2007 1:34:34 PM , Rating: 4
Being able to run at a framerate greater than your reresh rate is important to providing smooth gameplay. Enabling vsync when your card is outputting frames at a faster rate than your monitor can display them ensures smooth gameplay with no tearing.

I don't know about the rest of the gamers out there, but that's pretty important to me.


By togaman5000 on 4/29/2007 8:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
only thing i have to say:

minimum frame rate.

i use vsync (in my opinion it makes gameplay smoother /shrug), so my 8800GTS and my old x700 pro both could do 60FPS in world of warcraft. However, my minimum frame rate on my x700pro was in the 20s-with the 8800GTS, its 55. Its not the max frame rate that my eye notices and affects gameplay,its minimum, so i'd rather have a GPU that can keep the minimum FPS to a number my eye won't mind.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki