The results are given in million pixels per second for different resolutions in the standard mode and at 4x MSAA: The picture looks similar, though the peak values are lower. The GeForce4 Ti shines in this test. Now look at the dependence of the Texturing Rate pixels sampled and filtered from textures, per second on the number of textures applied in a pass: While NVIDIA performs well, at least, up to 4 textures can be applied in a pass, the ATI's solutions decrease their performance a bit as the number of textures go up, which is typical of the new generation.
Now instead of the stages we have a pixel pipeline, that is why each new texture costs a new instruction. Product Theoretical maximum Measured maximum 2 textures Measured maximum max.
Dependence on the texture format: The results remain almost the same - all the chips are optimized for bit textures long ago and unpack compressed textures without any delays. But in future reviews, including the GeForce FX, we will take a look at comparatively new floating-point formats of the rendering and texture buffer, where we can have a real surprise considering the influence of the format on the processing speed.
It was discussed in depth in our previous reviews. What I want to say is that our test showed quite expected results. Soon we will see how the GeForce FX works in the anisotropy mode. Geometry Processing Speed Simple lighting, i. This figure nicely correlates with the peak value given by ATI. Note that the results depend only on the core's performance, that is why in none of the junior R based models the performance of geometrical processes is not understated.
So, the test showed the unprecedented results at least, in the version of 3D Mark making the gap between the specified and obtained performance. And it's comparable in performance with the VS 2. As you can see, the second version is not free at all - the loops used cause the performance drop.
Moreover, the drop is greater than we could expect from one loop instruction per several tens of usual instructions. Especially considering that the loops on the R are unrolled into a linear shader code by the chip's drivers, such losses look really strange.
Here is the first question for the ATI drivers developers. Is everything OK, and if it is, then what causes the performance drop? Two more shaders, in the order of increasing complexity one diffuse specular source and three diffuse specular sources : The picture repeats, except the fact that here the FFT performs better for both than the vertex shader.
Now look at the dependence on resolution for different degrees of complexity of geometrical calculations: Almost no dependence, only a bit of it on the simplest model, in the highest resolution. We have checked again the desired fact of precise and narrow focusing of the described synthetic tests. Now let's check the dependence on the VS version with the fixed fill pipeline or pixel shaders of the respective versions used together with VS: Nothing strange except the expected performance drop during the software emulation of VS 2.
And the last test is dependence on the model's detail level: As expected, the more polygons in a model, the higher the scores, but the dependence is quite weak and starting from the second level we can consider it sufficient.
The difference in the designing time shows that the concept of an ideal scene differs for them. Hidden Surface Removal Support and maximum performance of HSR percentagewise for the different number of triangles : Isn't it shocking? It's disabled by the drivers though it remains enabled on the NV What's the matter? An error in the chip that makes it impossible? It's disabled, and probably on the driver level again.
Maybe, for creation of an additional difference in real applications? But the more believable version is that there are some defects in the die, and that is why they are used for cards on the RADEON The following events showed that it's not so smooth as we wanted it to be. Isn't it the unit that controls the HSR? There is more food for thought for owners of the RADEON which want to increase performance of their cards on the software level.
Is there a way to enable 4 pipelines without touching the HSR? Well, we are working on it. Here is the efficiency in comparison with the unsorted scene: Even when the scene is originally unsorted, there is some gain. It's seen best of all in case of a small number of polygons. So, if you want to use the benefits of the HSR though half of the chips have it disabled you should sort the scene before rendering so that you can get a considerable performance increase several times.
In case of the unsorted scene the HSR makes an effect, but it's intangible just tens of percents. However, portal applications do sort scenes before rendering, and most modern FPS engines belong to them. That is why the game with HSR is worth the candle and, first of all, for games of this class. So, however that may be, we witness again that the most accelerators tested today have the HSR disabled forcedly. Dependence on resolution: The conclusion is that the HSR works best of all in low resolutions.
The explanation is simple - the removed blocks as a rule have a fixed size say, 8x8 , and in higher resolutions the number of blocks to be removed for the same entirely hidden triangle is greater, that is why the HSR effectiveness decreases. Probably, in future versions of accelerators the developers should use several base block sizes changing them for different resolutions or simply increase this size making users of new accelerators use LCD monitors at, at least, x Test: Well, the clock speed and the number of pipelines are on the first place.
The memory bus doesn't influence much, and the effect takes place only for some shaders first and seventh. We'll see how the GeForce FX will perform. Dependence on resolution: Well, this is a good dependence. The memory bus has almost no effect because of the reasons mentioned above - the main parameters for more or less complicated pixel shaders are core frequency and number of pipelines.
The shift from filling to calculations we were promised with the advent of DX9 is well seen. Point Sprites With lighting and without, depending on the size: As expected, it's noticeable only with small sprites whether lighting is on or off, after that it's limited by the fillrate starting at the size of 8. So, for rendering systems consisting of a great number of particles the optimal size is less than 8. By the way, NVIDIA performs better in this respect than ATI - the performance drop is not so noticeable, and up to the size of 8 you can consider it monotonous and rather small.
ATI loses courage between 4 and 8. Well, this is what we can witness. Also note that the pixel sprites are not a cure-all at all - the figures are quite close to those which can be obtained with usual polygons. However, pixel sprites are more handy for programmers and, in first turn, for all possible systems of particles. Let's see how animation impacts the performance: Well, the contribution of the animation is not great but noticeable, irrespective of the VS version. At last, there are detailed diagrams of dependence on resolution for three sizes: As we expected it, the dependence is insignificant; it is noticeable most of all for small sprites.
Conclusion I must admit that the results perfectly correlate with the theoretical peak values and are almost independent of other subsystems of accelerators. It's strange that the performance of the ATI cards falls in case of loops in the vertex shaders 2. Earlier this issue was never brought up.
Well, I think you know what I mean :- Alexander Medvedev unclesam ixbt. No registration needed! Article navigation:. Sandy Bridge. All rights reserved. Alexander Medvedev unclesam ixbt.
Oct 08, Oct 04, Oct 03, Most Popular. New Releases. Desktop Enhancements. Networking Software. Trending from CNET. Visit Site. Clicking on the Download Now Visit Site button above will open a connection to a third-party site.
Support for AGP 8X specification. First to use pixel shaders to accelerate video. Full Specifications. What's new in version 6. Release August 26, Date Added January 30, Version 6. Operating Systems. Total Downloads Downloads Last Week 0. Report Software. Related Software. Desktop Lighter Free.
Adjust the brightness of your computer screen. Intel Graphics Driver for Windows Free. Install graphic drivers for your Intel chipset based hardware.
0コメント