Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GeforceFX (vs. Radeon 9700 Pro) Benchmarks

Posted by Hemos on from the tide-goes-in-tide-goes-out dept.

Obiwan Kenobi writes "Looks like they guys at Maximum PC got lucky -- they scored the first ever GeforceFX benchmarks via an Alienware prototype machine. Two 'marks to notice: The Geforce FX scored 209 FPS in Quake 3 (1600x1200x32) and 41fps in 3dMark Game4 demo, while the Radeon 9700 Pro attained only 147fps in Quake 3 yet came back with 45fps in the 3dMark test. It seems that the GeforceFX is the clear leader in pure processing power, but in memory bandwidth the 9700 Pro is still king."

9 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. Finally, a decent frame rate. by Anand_S · · Score: 5, Funny

    ATI's 147 fps has always been a problem for me in Quake. I like to blink a lot.

    1. Re:Finally, a decent frame rate. by OldStash · · Score: 5, Funny

      True gamers blink between frames.

    2. Re:Finally, a decent frame rate. by JohnFluxx · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hmm indeed. Say, like the other poster said, that you blink at 10x what I said, so 70km/h.
      Now say the eyelid weighs only a few grams - say 0.01kg. ( I have no idea really, but those eye lashes seems quite heavy.) Say that we move them at a constant acceleration for 1/2cm, then constant deacceleration (seems a fair enough model.) We need the other to go from fully open to fully closed in 1cm/70kmph = .0005secs. At the middle of the eye we will need a speed of 140kmph (to average our 70kmph) and need to do so in 0.00025secs. This requires an acceleration of 140kmph/0.00025sec = 155555m/s^2. This would require a force of f=ma = 0.01*155555 = 1555N.
      We require that force again to slow down, and then we have to open the eye again. (I'm assuming things like gravity cancel out etc).
      So a total force of 1555*4N = 6220N. This is over a period of 0.001secs, so a total of 6220*0.001 = 6.2Watts are used. Say it is 90% efficent (muscles aren't perfect convertor, there will be friction despite the eye being very well lubricated,etc) so you will get 0.62W in waste heat.
      That's not that much heat, although you would probably need to blink a lot more, since the blinking wouldn't be as effective. Since a blink takes about (guessing) 1/2 sec, let's say you would need to do 0.5/0.001 blinks = 500 blinks. Say you blink every 10 secs (I have no idea really), that would be 50 of these quick-blinks per second, so now our output heat is 50*0.62 = 31W - which would sting like a bitch :)

  2. There goes all my Karma... by Ogrez · · Score: 0, Funny

    sorry, but I cant help myself

    In Soviet Russia... Video cards benchmark YOU!!

    Really though... it seems ATI is still suffering with problems writing good drivers for their hardware, and at least for the gamers out there, Nvidia has been the better choice for a long time.

    --


    Fire in the hands of the village idiot is no tool, but a weapon of mass destruction
  3. Who cares by nuggz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Geforce FX scored 209 FPS in Quake 3 (1600x1200x32)
    while the Radeon 9700 Pro attained only 147fps

    So what they are saying is that even at a ridiculous resolution, either card is capable of a higher framerate than your monitor, and your eyes.

  4. Hm... by foxtrot · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Radeon 9700 pushes 147 frames per second.

    The GeForce pushes over 200 frames per second.

    My monitor refreshes 75 times a second.

    Tell me again why I want a top-of-the-line graphics card?

    -JDF

  5. What I miss in all these benchmarks by archeopterix · · Score: 5, Funny

    They never test the number of text lines per second in text mode. Or Nethack FPS. My card does 7.5 FPS in Nethack, if I click the keys really fast.

  6. word choice by Transcendent · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...while the Radeon 9700 Pro attained only 147fps in Quake 3...

    Only?!?

  7. Quite the difference... by MrEd · · Score: 3, Funny


    ...Did anyone test the cards running quack3?

    --

    Wah!