Monthly drivers report and popular 3D
accelerators comparison

Monthy 3Digest is the project of iXBT.com and Digit-Life.com dedicated to informing you about the performance of a large number of graphics cards under Windows XP in the past month.

This issue is dedicated to drivers released from the 15th of January to the 15th of February 2007. Traditionally our 3Digest informs you about the best price/performance ratios available in the market. Another very important part of any issue is cards' 3D graphics quality shown on the example of a wide selection of games.

It's our 81th issue of 3Digest.

This digest is dedicated to dependency of graphics cards on CPU (so this month benchmarks do not feature AA and AF, which will be added again next month).

Attention! This digest contains benchmarking results for PCI-E cards only! The final AGP benchmarking was conducted in March 2006!

CONTENTS

1. Testbed configurations and test software
2. Tested videocards list
3. What's new in 3Digest
4. Test summary diagrams and digest bottom line
5. 3D accelerator rating calculations for the end of the month
6. Screenshot gallery
7. Game Quality Section
8. Game Quality Control Section

1. Testbed configuration

• Intel Core2 Duo (775 Socket) based machine
  • Intel Core2 Duo Extreme X6800 (2930 MHz) (L2=4096K) CPU;
  • Intel Core2 Duo Extreme X6800 CPU (overlocked to 3400 MHz by changing the multiplier to 13), 1066 MHz FSB and memory;
  • Intel Core2 Duo E6400 (2133 MHz) CPU;
  • EVGA nForce 680i SLI motherboard on NVIDIA nForce 680i;
  • 2 GB DDR2 SDRAM Corsair 1066MHz (CAS (tCL)=5; RAS to CAS delay (tRCD)=5; Row Precharge (tRP)=5; tRAS=15);
  • WD Caviar SE WD1600JD 160GB SATA HDD.

• AMD Athlon64 X2 4000+ (AM2 Socket) based machine
  • AMD Athlon64 X2 4000+ (2000 MHz) (L2=2048K) CPU;
  • Foxconn motherboard on NVIDIA nForce 590 SLI;
  • 2 GB DDR SDRAM Kingmax 400MHz (CAS (tCL)=3; RAS to CAS delay (tRCD)=3; Row Precharge (tRP)=5; tRAS=15);
  • WD Caviar SE WD1600JD 160GB SATA HDD.

The testbed has Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2, DirectX 9.0c installed. Dell 3007WFP (30") monitor was used.

The list of benchmarks is here

2. Graphics card list

Below is a list of graphics cards that we tested linked to the respective 3Digest feature description pages.

You can see the quality of 3D produced by tested cards in our monthly updated Screenshot gallery.

Card list:

1. PCI-E-ATI RADEON X1300 256MB DDR 2.8ns (450/550 MHz)
2. PCI-E-ATI RADEON X1300 512MB DDR2 3.0ns (450/500 MHz)
3. PCI-E-ATI RADEON X1300 PRO 256MB DDR 2.5ns (600/800 MHz)
4. PCI-E-ATI RADEON X1300 XT 256MB DDR2 2.0ns (500/900 MHz)
5. PCI-E-ATI RADEON X1650 PRO 256MB DDR 1.4ns (590/1380 MHz)
6. PCI-E-ATI RADEON X1650 XT 256MB DDR 1.4ns (600/1400 MHz)
7. PCI-E-ATI RADEON X1650 XT 256MB DDR 1.2ns (625/1530 MHz)
8. PCI-E-ATI RADEON X1800 GTO 256MB GDDR3 2.0ns (500/1000 MHz)
9. PCI-E-ATI RADEON X1950 PRO 256MB GDDR3 1.4ns (580/1400 MHz)
10. PCI-E-ATI RADEON X1950 PRO 256MB GDDR3 1.2ns (635/1480 MHz)
11. PCI-E-ATI RADEON X1950 PRO 512MB GDDR3 1.4ns (573/1360 MHz)
12. PCI-E-ATI RADEON X1900 XT 256MB GDDR3 1.2ns (625/1450 MHz)
13. PCI-E-ATI RADEON X1900 XT 512MB GDDR3 1.2ns (625/1450 MHz)
14. PCI-E-ATI RADEON X1900 XTX 512MB GDDR3 1.1ns (650/1550 MHz)
15. PCI-E-ATI RADEON X1950 XTX 512MB GDDR4 0.9ns (650/2000 MHz)
16. PCI-E-ATI RADEON X1950 XT 512MB GDDR4 0.9ns (625/1800 MHz)
17. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7300GT 256MB GDDR2 2.8ns (350/666 MHz)
18. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7300GT 256MB GDDR3 1.4ns (500/1400 MHz)
19. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7600GT 256MB GDDR3 1.4ns (560/1400 MHz)
20. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7600GS 256MB GDDR2 2.5ns (400/800 MHz)
21. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7600GS 512MB GDDR2 2.0ns (550/950 MHz)
22. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7600GS 256MB GDDR3 1.2ns (450/1100 MHz)
23. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX 256MB GDDR3 1.6ns (430/1200 MHz)
24. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT 256MB GDDR3 1.4ns (450/1320 MHz)
25. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GS 256MB GDDR3 1.4ns (450/1320 MHz)
26. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GS 256MB GDDR3 1.4ns (480/1400 MHz)
27. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GS 256MB GDDR3 1.4ns (540/1500 MHz)
28. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GT 512MB GDDR3 1.4ns (550/1400 MHz)
29. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GT 256MB GDDR3 1.4ns (600/1430 MHz)
30. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX 512MB GDDR3 1.1ns (650/1600 MHz)
31. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GX2 2x512MB GDDR3 1.4ns (500/1200 MHz)
32. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GX2 SLI 2x2x512MB GDDR3 1.4ns (4x500/1200 MHz)
33. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB GDDR3 1.2ns (512/1600 MHz)
34. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB GDDR3 1.1ns (575/1800 MHz)
35. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX SLI 2x768MB GDDR3 1.1ns (2x575/1800 MHz)
36. PCI-E-NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS SLI 2x640MB GDDR3 1.2ns (2x512/1600 MHz)

Archive (graphics cards, information for which is no longer updated)

3. February 2007 news and current business

Added a number of new graphics cards (marked "NEW").

• 3.1. The following drivers were released from January 15, 2007 to February 15, 2007:
  
  
  • NVIDIA ForceWare for all NVIDIA-based cards:
    
    
    • Windows XP: 97.92 for GF8800 series;
    • Windows XP: 93.81 for GF6xxx/7xxx series;

    
    

  • ATI Catalyst for all ATI-based cards:
    
    
    • Windows XP: CATALYST 7.1
      

  
  
  

• 3.2. This month we used 97.92 drivers for NVIDIA-based card summaries; 7.1 drivers for ATI-based card summaries.
  
  

4. Summary diagrams of graphics cards performance with the latest drivers available at the moment of testing in February 2007.

All willing to see the complete results in Excel 2003 format can download this RAR 3.0 or this ZIP archive.

• 4.1. Far Cry, Research (No HDR)
  • All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
    • 1024x768
    • 1280x1024
    • 1600x1200
    • 2560x1600

  
  
  

• 4.2. Far Cry, Research (HDR)
  • All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
    • 1024x768
    • 1280x1024
    • 1600x1200
    • 2560x1600

  
  
  

• 4.3. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (No HDR)
  • All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
    • 1024x768
    • 1280x1024
    • 1600x1200
    • 2560x1600

  
  
  

• 4.4. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (HDR)
  • All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
    • 1024x768
    • 1280x1024
    • 1600x1200
    • 2560x1600

  
  
  

• 4.5. Call Of Juarez
  • All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
    • 1024x768
    • 1280x1024
    • 1600x1200
    • 2560x1600

  
  
  

• 4.6. Prey
  • All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
    • 1024x768
    • 1280x1024
    • 1600x1200
    • 2560x1600

  
  
  

• 4.7. 3DMark05 MARKS
  • All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
    • 1024x768
    • 1280x1024
    • 1600x1200
    • 2560x1600

  
  
  

• 4.8. Company Of Heroes
  • All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
    • 1024x768
    • 1280x1024
    • 1600x1200
    • 2560x1600

  
  
  

• 4.9. F.E.A.R.
  • All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
    • 1024x768
    • 1280x1024
    • 1600x1200
    • 2560x1600

  
  
  

• 4.10. Serious Sam II (No HDR)
  • All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
    • 1024x768
    • 1280x1024
    • 1600x1200
    • 2560x1600

  
  
  

• 4.11. Serious Sam II (HDR)
  • All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
    • 1024x768
    • 1280x1024
    • 1600x1200
    • 2560x1600

  
  
  

• 4.12. 3DMark 06, Shader Model 2.0 MARKS
  • All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
    • 1024x768
    • 1280x1024
    • 1600x1200
    • 2560x1600

  
  
  

• 4.13. 3DMark 06, Shader Model 3.0 MARKS
  • All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
    • 1024x768
    • 1280x1024
    • 1600x1200
    • 2560x1600

  
  
  

• 4.14. Archive (information from the previous 3Digests absent in this issue)
  
  
• 4.15. Notes on graphics cards performance with the latest drivers:
  
  
  • If a particular card is not in the summary, i.e. its results are either 1, or 100, it means the given benchmark hasn't work or has worked incorrectly with this card.
  • We should underline that, like before, WinXP drivers for NVIDIA 8800 series introduce a number of serious artefacts in some games, not to mention the inoperative SLI (e.g., Call Of Juarez.) Therefore you can see that performance of these SLI configurations is low (even lower than that of single cards.)
  • Speaking of our impressions from testing. Unlike the similar examination conducted nearly 2 years ago, here we can clearly see that modern games have a very heavy impact on graphics cards, so CPU influence is somehow lower. Take a look at the results of Far Cry (which will be 3 years old soon) and you will notice the large influence of CPU. And then take a look at, say, Call Of Juarez, which places all the load on a graphics card. Our testing also visually separated cards to strongly CPU dependent, moderately CPU dependent, and lightly CPU dependent. Of course, you should consider that benchmarks were run at maximum quality settings possible ingame, which increased the load on graphics cards. We can assume that the next AA+AF benchmarking might produce unique results, when nearly all cards (except for the 8800 series maybe) demonstrate almost the same performance on different platforms and with different CPU clock rates.
  • Also consider that we have already had the test results for the base Core2 Duo 2.13 GHz processor. And its performance was 15% higher than that of the A64 X2 5000+. Therefore, all other Athlon64 X2 processors (except for the 5200+) should get within the range between the A64 X2 4000+ and the Core2 Duo E6400. And you can estimate the difference percentage yourself.

  5. 3D accelerator ratings calculations for the end of the month

  Attention! Since we have only examined CPU dependency of graphics cards and haven't conducted any AA+AF tests, we haven't made any ratings! Therefore we can only pe-publish those from December 3Digest.

  Calculations were based on gaming benchmark results as well as the results from 3DMark06 new tests (ATI CATALYST 6.12, NVIDIA ForceWare 96.97).

  
  All willing to conduct their own rating calculations with own values are invited to download this Excel XP table in RAR 3.0 or ZIP format.

  The method of rating calculation is described here.

  Calculations were conducted considering the following assumptions:

  1. Percentage of performance and quality demand ratio:
     • performance priority - 60%
     • quality priority - 40%

  2. Only the HIGHEST resolution available in games was used to calculate prospect ratings.
  3. The usability rating indicates performance and features of a card (numerator) related to its price (denominator).

  According to your wishes, we separated ratings into two groups: the first gathers all benchmarks, and the second contains only the gaming tests without m3DMark05/06. Disbelieving the synthetic tests, many think the second group is of higher importance.

  Core2 Duo X6800 platform:

  "Usability" Rating:
  
  

• GAMING ONLY usability rating

  #	Card	Usability rating	Prospect rating	Price
  01.	X1950 PRO 256MB, 580/1400	2176	677	237
  02.	X1950 PRO 512MB, 575/1370	2150	716	258
  03.	X1950 PRO 256MB, 635/1485	2095	697	260
  04.	X1900 XT 256MB, 625/1450	1898	772	332
  05.	X1650 PRO 256MB 590/1380	1884	420	115
  06.	X1300 XT 256MB 500/800	1865	352	85
  07.	8800 GTX 768MB, 575/1800	1863	1252	795
  08.	X1650 XT 256MB, 625/1540	1759	538	200
  09.	X1650 XT 256MB, 600/1400	1743	517	187
  10.	8800 GTS 640MB, 512/1600	1725	1045	649
  11.	X1950 XT 512MB, 625/1800	1658	853	445
  12.	X1900 XT 512MB, 625/1450	1651	809	415
  13.	X1800 GTO 256MB 500/1000	1608	547	224
  14.	7300 GT 256MB, 500/1400	1537	339	90
  15.	X1300 PRO 256MB, 600/800	1532	294	72
  16.	X1900 XTX 512MB, 650/1550	1530	834	472
  17.	X1950 XTX 512MB, 650/2000	1440	863	528
  18.	7600 GS 256MB, 450/1100	1396	359	106
  19.	7600 GS 256MB, 400/800	1251	322	97
  20.	7600 GT 256MB, 560/1400	1242	394	145
  21.	8800 GTX SLI 2x768MB, 575/1800	1130	1479	1590
  22.	7300 GT 256MB, 350/666	1117	258	76
  23.	X1300 256MB, 450/550	1104	238	69
  24.	7900 GS 256MB, 450/1320	1093	461	219
  25.	7600 GS 512MB, 550/950	1070	359	142
  26.	7900 GS 256MB, 540/1500	1032	494	265
  27.	7900 GS 256MB, 480/1400	978	477	262
  28.	X1300 512MB, 450/500	950	248	85
  29.	7950 GT 256MB 600/1430	934	526	325
  30.	7950 GT 512MB 550/1400	867	517	342
  31.	7900 GT 256MB, 450/1320	855	479	300
  32.	7900 GTX 512MB, 650/1600	831	551	402
  33.	7800 GTX 256MB, 430/1200	723	471	342
  34.	BFG 7950GX2 2x512MB, 500/1200	687	628	585
  35.	7950GX2 SLI 2x2x512MB, 500/1200	393	705	1170

  
  
  

• GENERAL usability rating

  #	Card	Usability rating	Prospect rating	Price
  01.	X1950 PRO 256MB, 580/1400	2984	1097	237
  02.	X1950 PRO 512MB, 575/1370	2951	1166	258
  03.	X1950 PRO 256MB, 635/1485	2870	1128	260
  04.	8800 GTX 768MB, 575/1800	2716	2101	795
  05.	X1650 PRO 256MB 590/1380	2684	691	115
  06.	X1300 XT 256MB 500/800	2616	575	85
  07.	X1900 XT 256MB, 625/1450	2557	1240	332
  08.	8800 GTS 640MB, 512/1600	2508	1747	649
  09.	X1650 XT 256MB, 625/1540	2423	876	200
  10.	X1650 XT 256MB, 600/1400	2367	829	187
  11.	7300 GT 256MB, 500/1400	2316	575	90
  12.	X1950 XT 512MB, 625/1800	2236	1380	445
  13.	X1900 XT 512MB, 625/1450	2218	1299	415
  14.	7600 GS 256MB, 450/1100	2144	613	106
  15.	X1300 PRO 256MB, 600/800	2117	470	72
  16.	X1800 GTO 256MB 500/1000	2100	862	224
  17.	X1900 XTX 512MB, 650/1550	2057	1340	472
  18.	X1950 XTX 512MB, 650/2000	1933	1384	528
  19.	7600 GT 256MB, 560/1400	1913	677	145
  20.	7600 GS 256MB, 400/800	1905	551	97
  21.	8800 GTX SLI 2x768MB, 575/1800	1726	2544	1590
  22.	7300 GT 256MB, 350/666	1713	444	76
  23.	7900 GS 256MB, 450/1320	1661	788	219
  24.	7600 GS 512MB, 550/950	1658	622	142
  25.	7900 GS 256MB, 540/1500	1580	848	265
  26.	X1300 256MB, 450/550	1501	385	69
  27.	7900 GS 256MB, 480/1400	1487	816	262
  28.	7950 GT 256MB 600/1430	1440	908	325
  29.	X1300 512MB, 450/500	1365	411	85
  30.	7950 GT 512MB 550/1400	1337	892	342
  31.	7900 GT 256MB, 450/1320	1304	821	300
  32.	7900 GTX 512MB, 650/1600	1289	953	402
  33.	BFG 7950GX2 2x512MB, 500/1200	1128	1116	585
  34.	7800 GTX 256MB, 430/1200	1112	812	342
  35.	7950GX2 SLI 2x2x512MB, 500/1200	710	1319	1170

  "Prospect" Rating:
  
  

• GAMING ONLY prospect rating

  #	Card	Usability rating	Prospect rating	Price
  01.	8800 GTX SLI 2x768MB, 575/1800	1130	1479	1590
  02.	8800 GTX 768MB, 575/1800	1863	1252	795
  03.	8800 GTS 640MB, 512/1600	1725	1045	649
  04.	X1950 XTX 512MB, 650/2000	1440	863	528
  05.	X1950 XT 512MB, 625/1800	1658	853	445
  06.	X1900 XTX 512MB, 650/1550	1530	834	472
  07.	X1900 XT 512MB, 625/1450	1651	809	415
  08.	X1900 XT 256MB, 625/1450	1898	772	332
  09.	X1950 PRO 512MB, 575/1370	2150	716	258
  10.	7950GX2 SLI 2x2x512MB, 500/1200	393	705	1170
  11.	X1950 PRO 256MB, 635/1485	2095	697	260
  12.	X1950 PRO 256MB, 580/1400	2176	677	237
  13.	BFG 7950GX2 2x512MB, 500/1200	687	628	585
  14.	7900 GTX 512MB, 650/1600	831	551	402
  15.	X1800 GTO 256MB 500/1000	1608	547	224
  16.	X1650 XT 256MB, 625/1540	1759	538	200
  17.	7950 GT 256MB 600/1430	934	526	325
  18.	X1650 XT 256MB, 600/1400	1743	517	187
  19.	7950 GT 512MB 550/1400	867	517	342
  20.	7900 GS 256MB, 540/1500	1032	494	265
  21.	7900 GT 256MB, 450/1320	855	479	300
  22.	7900 GS 256MB, 480/1400	978	477	262
  23.	7800 GTX 256MB, 430/1200	723	471	342
  24.	7900 GS 256MB, 450/1320	1093	461	219
  25.	X1650 PRO 256MB 590/1380	1884	420	115
  26.	7600 GT 256MB, 560/1400	1242	394	145
  27.	7600 GS 512MB, 550/950	1070	359	142
  28.	7600 GS 256MB, 450/1100	1396	359	106
  29.	X1300 XT 256MB 500/800	1865	352	85
  30.	7300 GT 256MB, 500/1400	1537	339	90
  31.	7600 GS 256MB, 400/800	1251	322	97
  32.	X1300 PRO 256MB, 600/800	1532	294	72
  33.	7300 GT 256MB, 350/666	1117	258	76
  34.	X1300 512MB, 450/500	950	248	85
  35.	X1300 256MB, 450/550	1104	238	69

  
  
  

• GENERAL prospect rating

  #	Card	Usability rating	Prospect rating	Price
  01.	8800 GTX SLI 2x768MB, 575/1800	1726	2544	1590
  02.	8800 GTX 768MB, 575/1800	2716	2101	795
  03.	8800 GTS 640MB, 512/1600	2508	1747	649
  04.	X1950 XTX 512MB, 650/2000	1933	1384	528
  05.	X1950 XT 512MB, 625/1800	2236	1380	445
  06.	X1900 XTX 512MB, 650/1550	2057	1340	472
  07.	7950GX2 SLI 2x2x512MB, 500/1200	710	1319	1170
  08.	X1900 XT 512MB, 625/1450	2218	1299	415
  09.	X1900 XT 256MB, 625/1450	2557	1240	332
  10.	X1950 PRO 512MB, 575/1370	2951	1166	258
  11.	X1950 PRO 256MB, 635/1485	2870	1128	260
  12.	BFG 7950GX2 2x512MB, 500/1200	1128	1116	585
  13.	X1950 PRO 256MB, 580/1400	2984	1097	237
  14.	7900 GTX 512MB, 650/1600	1289	953	402
  15.	7950 GT 256MB 600/1430	1440	908	325
  16.	7950 GT 512MB 550/1400	1337	892	342
  17.	X1650 XT 256MB, 625/1540	2423	876	200
  18.	X1800 GTO 256MB 500/1000	2100	862	224
  19.	7900 GS 256MB, 540/1500	1580	848	265
  20.	X1650 XT 256MB, 600/1400	2367	829	187
  21.	7900 GT 256MB, 450/1320	1304	821	300
  22.	7900 GS 256MB, 480/1400	1487	816	262
  23.	7800 GTX 256MB, 430/1200	1112	812	342
  24.	7900 GS 256MB, 450/1320	1661	788	219
  25.	X1650 PRO 256MB 590/1380	2684	691	115
  26.	7600 GT 256MB, 560/1400	1913	677	145
  27.	7600 GS 512MB, 550/950	1658	622	142
  28.	7600 GS 256MB, 450/1100	2144	613	106
  29.	X1300 XT 256MB 500/800	2616	575	85
  30.	7300 GT 256MB, 500/1400	2316	575	90
  31.	7600 GS 256MB, 400/800	1905	551	97
  32.	X1300 PRO 256MB, 600/800	2117	470	72
  33.	7300 GT 256MB, 350/666	1713	444	76
  34.	X1300 512MB, 450/500	1365	411	85
  35.	X1300 256MB, 450/550	1501	385	69

  
  
  

  Ingame quality

  
  
  

  6. Games screenshot gallery

  All test screenshots are compiled into a gallery where you can qualify the work of a chosen videocard and compare it to the reference images taken on ATI Radeon 9500. All shots were taken at the same 1024x768 resolution at the maximum quality. Screenshot gallery

  7. Game Artefacts Gallery

  Game Quality Section

  8. Game Quality Control Section

  Game Quality Control Section

  
  
  

  We thank all the companies that provided us with graphics cards and other equipment for our 3Digest, including:
  
  Foxconn Russia,
  MSI Russia,
  Gainward,
  
  HIS (and personally Peter Yueng)
  NVIDIA Russia,
  AMD Russia,
  Sapphire Technology Russia,
  ASUStek Russia,
  
  
  
  
  

  The PSU for the testbed was kindly provided by HIPER

  The Dell 3007WFP monitor was kindly provided by NVIDIA

  
  
  
  
  
  

  Vitaly Milov (vmilov@ixbt.com)	Danil Gridasov (degust@ixbt.com)

  
  
  

  Andrey Vorobiev (anvakams@ixbt.com)

  04.03.2007