The game DroneZ was developed
to leverage features unique to the GeForce3 nfiniteFX engine and is primarily an
OpenGL benchmark. In this rolling demo 423 unique vertex shaders can be are used
to create inspiring graphics from a host of gameplay scenes and provide a
realtime test of the DroneZ engine and graphics. All of the test cards were run
at GeForce2 normal mode. Sure everything looked bland, but it works!
Higher numbers denote faster frames per second
(FPS), and hence, better performance.
| DroneZ (1024x768) Benchmark Results
|
|
Video Card |
(FPS) |
Ranking |
| 1. |
GeForce2 Pro |
165.7 |
 |
| 2. |
GeForce3 |
191.2 |
|
| 3. |
Radeon 8500 |
189.2 |
|
| 4. |
GeForce2 Ti |
167.4 |
|
| 5. |
GeForce3 Ti200 |
188.7 |
|
| 6. |
GeForce3 Ti500 |
195.6 |
|
| Overclocking Benchmark Results |
| 4a. |
GeForce2 Ti (285/485) |
175.4 |
|
| 5a. |
GeForce3 Ti200 (195/530) |
194.3 |
|
| 6a. |
GeForce3 Ti500 (270/610) |
212.3 |
|
DroneZ is one of the newer games
out on the market, and one that has been built to take advantage of the
nFiniteFX engine. It works as a pretty good benchmark at how future games will
run on current cards. I would have liked to have done the benchmarks at higher
resolutions but my 19" monitor decided to die on me.
The GeForce 3 based cards and
the Radeon 8500 are all fairly evenly matched, with not much variance between
them. Overclocking yeilds very good gains on the MSI Ti500 model, but the
GeForce 2 Ti200 still falls short of the basic GeForce 3 marks when
overclocked.
Return to Castle Wolfenstein is a relatively new game benchmark. However, RTCW takes
up where Quake III left off and continues to form the
basis of the first person shooter system stressing that QIII has become a halmark for. Based upon
the Quake III engine, RTCS is obviously going to be quite taxing on even
a top end system.
Higher numbers denote
faster frames per second (FPS), and hence, better performance.
| RTCW (640x480 atdemo6) Benchmark Results |
|
Video Card |
(FPS) |
Ranking |
| 1. |
GeForce2 Pro |
62.5 |
|
| 2. |
GeForce3 |
62.9 |
|
| 3. |
Radeon 8500 |
60.7 |
|
| 4. |
GeForce2 Ti |
62.1 |
|
| 5. |
GeForce3 Ti200 |
59.7 |
|
| 6. |
GeForce3 Ti500 |
62.8 |
|
| Overclocking Benchmark Results |
| 4a. |
GeForce2 Ti (285/485) |
63.8 |
|
| 5a. |
GeForce3 Ti200 (195/530) |
61.8 |
|
| 6a. |
GeForce3 Ti500 (270/610) |
63.5 |
|
| RTCW (640x480 atdemo8) Benchmark Results |
|
Video Card |
(FPS) |
Ranking |
| 1. |
GeForce2 Pro |
171.2 |
|
| 2. |
GeForce3 |
172.5 |
|
| 3. |
Radeon 8500 |
163.3 |
|
| 4. |
GeForce2 Ti |
170.5 |
|
| 5. |
GeForce3 Ti200 |
168.9 |
|
| 6. |
GeForce3 Ti500 |
173.8 |
|
| Overclocking Benchmark Results |
| 4a. |
GeForce2 Ti (285/485) |
173.5 |
|
| 5a. |
GeForce3 Ti200 (195/530) |
171.6 |
|
| 6a. |
GeForce3 Ti500 (270/610) |
175.9 |
|
It's so obvious here by the extremely close results that we're CPU limited. Each of the videocards are within a few percent
of one another. Let's try turning up the resolution and see what happens to these results.
|
RTCW
(1024x768 atdemo6) Benchmark Results |
|
Video Card |
(FPS) |
Ranking |
| 1. |
GeForce2 Pro |
57.6 |
|
| 2. |
GeForce3 |
59.8 |
|
| 3. |
Radeon 8500 |
58.7 |
|
| 4. |
GeForce2 Ti |
57.6 |
|
| 5. |
GeForce3 Ti200 |
57.9 |
|
| 6. |
GeForce3 Ti500 |
60.3 |
|
| Overclocking Benchmark Results |
| 4a. |
GeForce2 Ti (285/485) |
59.8 |
|
| 5a. |
GeForce3 Ti200 (195/530) |
60.7 |
|
| 6a. |
GeForce3 Ti500 (270/610) |
62.0 |
|
| RTCW (1024x768 atdemo8) Benchmark
Results |
|
Video Card |
(FPS) |
Ranking |
| 1. |
GeForce2 Pro |
138.4 |
|
| 2. |
GeForce3 |
165.8 |
|
| 3. |
Radeon 8500 |
161.2 |
|
| 4. |
GeForce2 Ti |
140.7 |
|
| 5. |
GeForce3 Ti200 |
147.9 |
|
| 6. |
GeForce3 Ti500 |
169.2 |
|
| Overclocking Benchmark Results |
| 4a. |
GeForce2 Ti (285/485) |
142.6 |
|
| 5a. |
GeForce3 Ti200 (195/530) |
153.5 |
|
| 6a. |
GeForce3 Ti500 (270/610) |
176.9 |
|
Well there are a few differences starting to show
between the various cards. Between the results on the atDemo6 is not that much
variation at all, but on the atDemo8 we can see the rifts beginning to
form that separate the good cards from the average. The MSI Titanium
cards are good over the standard versions, but the one to really watch is the
MSI Ti500. Compared to the Radeon 8500, the Ti500 comes out on top, at default
speeds and even more so when overclocked.
| RTCW
(1600x1200 atdemo6) Benchmark Results
|
|
Video Card |
(FPS) |
Ranking |
| 1. |
GeForce2 Pro |
32.1 |
|
| 2. |
GeForce3 |
45.7 |
|
| 3. |
Radeon 8500 |
45.1 |
|
| 4. |
GeForce2 Ti |
32.1 |
|
| 5. |
GeForce3 Ti200 |
42.8 |
|
| 6. |
GeForce3 Ti500 |
47.5 |
|
| Overclocking Benchmark Results |
| 4a. |
GeForce2 Ti (285/485) |
33.8 |
|
| 5a. |
GeForce3 Ti200 (195/530) |
46.0 |
|
| 6a. |
GeForce3 Ti500 (270/610) |
51.3 |
|
| RTCW (1600x1200 atdemo8) Benchmark Results |
|
Video Card |
(FPS) |
Ranking |
| 1. |
GeForce2 Pro |
62.7 |
|
| 2. |
GeForce3 |
95.6 |
|
| 3. |
Radeon 8500 |
87.9 |
|
| 4. |
GeForce2 Ti |
63.1 |
|
| 5. |
GeForce3 Ti200 |
85.1 |
|
| 6. |
GeForce3 Ti500 |
100.2 |
|
| Overclocking Benchmark Results |
| 4a. |
GeForce2 Ti (285/485) |
66.7 |
|
| 5a. |
GeForce3 Ti200 (195/530) |
96.2 |
|
| 6a. |
GeForce3 Ti500 (270/610) |
107.6 |
|
Now
we're beginning to seem some differences in the reference cards. The GeForce 2
Pro and MSI GeForce 2 Ti are pretty evenly matched as the resolution
shoots up to 1600x1200 pixels - attesting to the limitations of that GPU, even
at higher Titanium speeds. As the resolution goes higher more stress is placed
on the GPU and the more "efficient" cards start to take a larger lead. Both
GeForce2 based cards are left in the dust.
The MSI Ti500 can break 100
fps in atdemo8 at a resolution of 1600x1200, while the very capable Radeon 8500
is able to reach just 87.9fps. The MSI Starforce 822, the pure GeForce 3 card in
this set of reference video cards is quite powerful, and performs at near
GF3Ti500 frame rates - damn, that's mighty impressive!
DroneZ
RSS Newsletter
