DirectX 9 Gaming Performance


Gaming Performance

Gaming Performance

Gaming Performance

Gaming Performance

After the clustering of scores in Winstones, you may not have expected much variation in game benchmarks. That is why expectations get us all in trouble because there is a really a large variation in DX9 benchmarks. One thing is quite consistent across the DX9 tests, and that is the domination of performance results by the Asus P5GD2 and the Epox 5epa+. In every benchmark, either the Asus or Epox wins the test, and the other board is normally #2 or #3 in the worst case. Another board that is consistently at the top of the DirectX 9 benchmarks is the ECS PF4 915P Extreme, which will come as a surprise to many. It was certainly a surprise to this reviewer.

The other boards seem to shift positions in the middle, but we, again, have some consistency at the bottom of the performance results. The Soltek is consistently at the bottom of the performance charts, which certainly should not be a surprise, considering that it is the only board running our Fast DDR400 at DDR333 speed. We would expect that as soon as Soltek can fix this issue, the position of the Soltek will change relative to other boards in the 915 roundup.

One thing to keep in mind as you look at the benchmarks is the relative position of the top overclockers in this roundup. The Asus, Abit, Epox, MSI, Albatron, and DFI were our top overclockers in our tests, but clearly, they get to their high overclocks by different means. The MSI can reach 285 at the top, but is often near the bottom in stock performance. The DFI is pretty average at stock speeds, but it becomes a dynamo when challenged to an overclock. The Asus is a great overclocker, but it is also very fast at stock speeds. In other words, the Asus starts fast and stays fast through overclocking, making it a great choice for both stock performance and extreme overclocking.

General Performance and Encoding DirectX 8 & Open GL Gaming Performance
Comments Locked

26 Comments

View All Comments

  • coldpower27 - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link

    Of course the Pentium 4 560 is gonna be outperformed, The Pentium 4 560 is designed to compete at the 417US price point while the Athlon FX 55 is designed for the 827US, were talking double the P4 560 in price. i believethe closest competitor for the Pentium 4 560 in price is probably the Athlon 64 3700+ even though it is on Single Channel DDR.
  • danidentity - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link

    Even the 3800+ could be included, but that is still about $180 more expensive than the 560, according to Newegg.
  • danidentity - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link

    I know comments like I'm about to make have been made before, and I am not biased, but I wanted to reiterate.

    Why is the FX-55 even part of the benchmarks in this review? Why not a 3500+? The FX-55 is TWICE the price of the Pentium 560 according to current Newegg prices.

    I know the argument will be that the FX-55 and the 560 are two of the highest performing chips from the two camps. But the fact of the matter is that most people shopping for a 560 aren't going to be shopping for a FX-55. It's in an entirely different class.
  • mongoosesRawesome - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link

    Can you do a comparison between soundstorm and dolby digital live? What is the bitrate of the encoding? Frequency range? Overall quality?

    It seems like this may be the second time I pass on AC3 encoding though. Last time I chose a northwood platform over AMD and NF2, and this time I'll likely choose the NF4 over intel and dolby digital live.

    Would be nice to be able to easily hook it up to my klipsch dolby digital decodor though...
  • anandtechrocks - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link

    Thanks for the great review!
  • MAME - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link

    AMD >>>>>>>>>>>>> *

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now