|
 |
|
DirectX 8 Benchmarks with 3DMark 2001SE (Build
330) |
|
Futuremark's Flagship |
|
The first program we used is the very popular 3DMark2001SE
from FutureMark. Surely 3DMark03 is available, but
we feel it is best used with the newer DX9.0 cards. We also
threw in some overclocked scores to see how the Albatron
Ti4800SE compared to the more powerful Ti4600 from eVGA.
At 1024x768 and 1600x1200, the
Albatron was outpaced by the Ti4600 by an average of 1000
3DMarks. Once we overclocked
the card, the Ti4800SE took a slight lead at 1024x768, but
was not able to sustain it at 1600x1200. Considering
that the overclocked card was running a faster GPU and
RAM, this was a bit surprising. In fact, I was so
surprised that I completely formatted the hard drive and
did a fresh installation of Window XP a second time for
fear that something had gone wrong with the drivers the
first time around. In the end, we saw no measurable change in
the spread and have to stand by these numbers. We
suspect the AGP8X implementation was relaxing some timings
to maintain stability, which resulted in the lower scores.
Next we'll take a turn at
another popular DirectX benchmark, Novalogic's
Comanche4...
|
|
|
DirectX 8 Benchmarks with Novalogic's Comanche 4 |
|
More DirectX Goodness |
|
At 1024x768, we saw the two
cards virtually tied, showing how the two are limited by
the CPU at this resolution. The Ti4600 slipped ahead
of the Albatron Ti4800SE by a fraction
at 1600x1200, showing its might with the higher clocked
components. In the end, the differences were minimal
at best, showing the Ti4800SE can hold its own just fine
versus the Ti4600.
Next we take a look at another
popular DirectX test with UT2003...
On to
UT2003 and Quake 3 |