Graphics Performance and Encoding
The 3DMark benchmarks, published by FutureMark, are probably the most
widely quoted gaming performance benchmarks available. While the
benchmarks are based on game sequences written by FutureMark to reveal
subtle differences in gaming performance, they still have to be
considered synthetic benchmarks. They are useful for broad Graphics
comparisons, but they are no substitute for benchmarks with real gaming
engines that are currently being played.
3DMark06 was recently introduced and you can find more in-depth information about this new 3DMark at in the AnandTech article Futuremark's Latest Attempt: 3DMark06 Tested.
You would expect the most recent and most feature-rich cards to
distance themselves from the competition in the most recent updates of
3DMark. That is exactly what happens. The latest, greatest X1900XT is
only about 1500 points ahead in 3DMark03, but it grows to a 30% lead
(10657 vs. 7698) in 3DMark05 and a similar 30% lead in the latest
3Dmark06. However, comparing apples to apples (the A8R32MVP running an
MSI 7800GTX to NVIDIA boards running a 7800GTX), results were too close
to call an advantage for the NVIDIA or ATI chipset boards.
Encoding results should not be affected by the graphics card used
during the encoding benchmarks. This is demonstrated again by the
archive test results for AutoGK using an AMD 4000+ processor with a
wide assortment of video cards. The performance range of those encoding
tests is just 48.1 to 48.9 - a difference form high to low of just 0.8
frames. Clearly, the biggest influence on this encoding benchmark is
the CPU used for testing.

February 17, 2006
February 16, 2006
February 15, 2006