VR Features

 

Synthetic Benchmarks

Before we begin, the system specs as below

• Core 2 Quad QX9650 @ 4.43Ghz (420Mhzx 10.5), on water, Swiftech Apogee GT block.
• Asus P5K3 Deluxe
• Corsair Dominators 1800C7 @ 1681Mhz
• Silverstone Olympia 1.2kW
• Seagate 7200.7 80GB x2
• ...and the list of graphic cards listed on the 2nd page of the review

 

Industry watchers tend to place much emphasis on synthetic benchmarks from Futuremark, and they do very well in pulling apart minor differences between graphics accelerators. 3DMark01 is running out of favour amongst enthusiasts due to the ever shifting dependence on system power.

3DMark01 may no longer be as graphically bottlenecked as it used to be, but it shows the overall system performance, especially when it comes to driver overheads and texture/memory management on, and off the graphics accelerator.

3DMark03 remains responsive to graphical power scaling even today, largely thanks to GT4: Mother Nature. The mix of DX7 and DX8.1 graphics goes on to display compatibility.

Prior to 3DMark Vantage's debut, 3DMark06 continues to be the de-facto synthetic benchmark for bottlenecking graphics accelerators. Here, we see the XFX and XpertVision/Palit cosy on the framerates. Coincidental? We'd see.

 

'lil Gaming

 

Team Fortress 2 runs on the wildly flexible Source engine. We ran the incredibly raucous TF2 at 1600x1200 on below settings:

Notice how the the "X" lines up? Incredibly similar in performance!