3Digest: September 2007

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Monthly drivers report and popular 3D
accelerators comparison

The 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 and Vista in the past month.

This issue is dedicated to drivers released from the 15th of August 2007 to the 15th of September 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 88th issue of 3Digest.

September 2007

From this issue on we remove SCCT and SS2 tests results obtained without HDR. We've also added a few new graphics cards to our list.

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

1. Testbed configuration

Intel Core2 Duo (775 Socket) based machine
- Intel Core2 Duo Extreme X6800 (2930 MHz) (L2=4096K) CPU;
- EVGA nForce 680i SLI motherboard on NVIDIA nForce 680i;
- 2GB DDR2 SDRAM Corsair 1142MHz (CAS (tCL)=5; RAS to CAS delay (tRCD)=5; Row Precharge (tRP)=5; tRAS=15);
- WD Caviar SE WD1600JD 160GB SATA HDD.

The testbed has the following operating systems installed:

Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2, DirectX 9.0c,
Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit, DirectX 10;

We also used the Dell 3007WFP monitor. (30").

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.

Cards list:

Archive (graphics cards, information for which is no longer updated)

3. September 2007 news and current matters

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

3.1. The following drivers were released from August 15, 2007 to September 15, 2007:
- NVIDIA ForceWare for all NVIDIA cards:
  - Windows XP: 163.69 WHQL;
  - Windows Vista: 163.67 beta;
- ATI Catalyst for all ATI cards:
  - Windows XP: CATALYST 7.9
  - Windows Vista: CATALYST 7.9
3.2. This month we used 163.69/67 drivers for NVIDIA-based card summaries, 7.8/9 drivers for ATI-based card summaries.

4. Summary diagrams of graphics cards performance with the latest drivers for September 2007.

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

If you are familiar with 3D graphics, you will be able to draw all the conclusions yourself after looking at the charts provided. Those interested in our judgement of test results should see reviews dedicated to specific GPUs (see our 3D graphics section). And for newbies and those who has just started choosing a graphics card we'll provide some more detailed explanations.

First of all, you should take a look at our brief references of modern graphics card series and their respective GPUs. Note clock rates, shader support and pipeline architecture.

Reference for ATI RADEON X1300-1600-1800-1900-x, HD 2900 series

And now let's see the charts and make conclusions.

4.1. S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
- All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
- All resolutions on one page, No AA + AF 16x (High Quality for ATI)
4.2. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (HDR)
- All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
- All resolutions on one page, AA 4x + AF 16x (High Quality for ATI)
4.3. Call Of Juarez
- All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
- All resolutions on one page, AA 4x + AF 16x (High Quality for ATI)
4.4. Prey
- All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
- All resolutions on one page, AA 4x + AF 16x (High Quality for ATI)
4.5. 3DMark05 MARKS
- All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
- All resolutions on one page, AA 4x + AF 16x (High Quality for ATI)
4.6. Company Of Heroes
- All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
- All resolutions on one page, AA 4x + AF 16x (High Quality for ATI)
4.7. World In Conflict (DX10)
- All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
- All resolutions on one page, AA 4x + AF 16x (High Quality for ATI)
4.8. Serious Sam II (HDR)
- All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
- All resolutions on one page, AA 4x + AF 16x (High Quality for ATI)
4.9. 3DMark 06, Shader Model 2.0 MARKS
- All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
- All resolutions on one page, AA 4x + AF 16x (High Quality for ATI)
4.10. 3DMark 06, Shader Model 3.0 MARKS
- All resolutions on one page, No AA, No AF
- All resolutions on one page, AA 4x + AF 16x (High Quality for ATI)
4.11. Archive (information from the previous 3Digests absent in this issue)
4.12. Notes on graphics cards performance with the latest drivers:
- If a particular card is not in the summary, i.e. its results are either 0, or 1, it means the given benchmark hasn't work or has worked incorrectly with this card.
- If you imagine a line connecting ends of columns representing test results on a chart, you can judge if a game is critical to a card or a CPU. If this curve is "convex" and many cards perform similarly, it means at this resolution and under this load performance is bottlenecked by system resources, not graphics card potential. If, vice versa, the curve is "concave" and performance drops quickly as card potential reduces, it means the game puts heavy load on graphics cards and depends exclusively on their potential.
- Note that AA stopped working in CoH with ATI RADEON cards starting with CATALYST 7.8 drivers. As a result, its performance with AA+AF become even slightly higher than performance without it.

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

Calculations were based on gaming benchmark results as well as the results from new 3DMark06 tests (ATI CATALYST 7.8/9, NVIDIA ForceWare 163.67/69).

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:

Percentage of performance and quality demand ratio:
- performance priority - 60%
- quality priority - 40%
Only the HIGHEST resolution available in games was used to calculate prospect ratings.
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 based testbed:

Usability rating

GAMING ONLY usability rating

#	Card	Usability rating	Prospect rating	Approx. price
01.	HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/1400	240	352	121
02.	8600 GT 256MB, 560/1560	240	354	129
03.	8800 GTS 320MB, 512/1600	233	595	345
04.	HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 700/1400	232	334	110
05.	8800 GTS 640MB, 512/1600	222	682	440
06.	8800 GTX 768MB, 575/1800	213	803	610
07.	X1300 XT 256MB 500/800	212	229	57
08.	X1950 PRO 256MB, 580/1400	210	373	149
09.	8600 GTS 256MB, 720/2200	209	414	201
10.	8800 Ultra 768MB, 655/2250	207	876	720
11.	HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/2200	207	369	155
12.	HD 2900 XT 512MB, 750/1660	205	639	419
13.	HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 600/1000	199	301	100
14.	8800 Ultra 768MB, 612/2160	195	827	700
15.	X1650 PRO 256MB 590/1380	190	257	80
16.	8500 GT 256MB, 450/800	186	248	82
17.	HD 2400 XT 256MB, 700/1600	176	234	73
18.	X1950 PRO 512MB, 575/1370	175	399	195
19.	HD 2900 XT 1024MB, 750/2000	172	669	530
20.	8800 Ultra SLI 2x768MB, 612/2160	128	996	1400
21.	X1950 XTX 512MB, 650/2000	123	471	368
22.	7900 GS 256MB, 450/1320	116	259	129
23.	7600 GT 256MB, 560/1400	102	229	118

GENERAL usability rating

#	Card	Usability rating	Prospect rating	Approx. price
01.	HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/1400	994	728	121
02.	HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 700/1400	970	687	110
03.	8600 GT 256MB, 560/1560	948	719	129
04.	8800 GTS 320MB, 512/1600	904	1200	345
05.	X1950 PRO 256MB, 580/1400	852	765	149
06.	HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/2200	851	763	155
07.	X1300 XT 256MB 500/800	843	459	57
08.	8600 GTS 256MB, 720/2200	841	847	201
09.	HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 600/1000	841	622	100
10.	HD 2900 XT 512MB, 750/1660	829	1304	419
11.	8800 GTS 640MB, 512/1600	824	1331	440
12.	8800 GTX 768MB, 575/1800	777	1553	610
13.	X1650 PRO 256MB 590/1380	770	521	80
14.	8800 Ultra 768MB, 655/2250	763	1702	720
15.	8500 GT 256MB, 450/800	730	500	82
16.	HD 2400 XT 256MB, 700/1600	726	480	73
17.	8800 Ultra 768MB, 612/2160	720	1609	700
18.	X1950 PRO 512MB, 575/1370	719	815	195
19.	HD 2900 XT 1024MB, 750/2000	686	1348	530
20.	X1950 XTX 512MB, 650/2000	506	963	368
21.	8800 Ultra SLI 2x768MB, 612/2160	474	1939	1400
22.	7900 GS 256MB, 450/1320	418	492	129
23.	7600 GT 256MB, 560/1400	361	433	118

Prospect rating

GAMING ONLY prospect rating

#	Card	Usability rating	Prospect rating	Approx. price
01.	8800 Ultra SLI 2x768MB, 612/2160	128	996	1400
02.	8800 Ultra 768MB, 655/2250	207	876	720
03.	8800 Ultra 768MB, 612/2160	195	827	700
04.	8800 GTX 768MB, 575/1800	213	803	610
05.	8800 GTS 640MB, 512/1600	222	682	440
06.	HD 2900 XT 1024MB, 750/2000	172	669	530
07.	HD 2900 XT 512MB, 750/1660	205	639	419
08.	8800 GTS 320MB, 512/1600	233	595	345
09.	X1950 XTX 512MB, 650/2000	123	471	368
10.	8600 GTS 256MB, 720/2200	209	414	201
11.	X1950 PRO 512MB, 575/1370	175	399	195
12.	X1950 PRO 256MB, 580/1400	210	373	149
13.	HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/2200	207	369	155
14.	8600 GT 256MB, 560/1560	240	354	129
15.	HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/1400	240	352	121
16.	HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 700/1400	232	334	110
17.	HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 600/1000	199	301	100
18.	7900 GS 256MB, 450/1320	116	259	129
19.	X1650 PRO 256MB 590/1380	190	257	80
20.	8500 GT 256MB, 450/800	186	248	82
21.	HD 2400 XT 256MB, 700/1600	176	234	73
22.	7600 GT 256MB, 560/1400	102	229	118
23.	X1300 XT 256MB 500/800	212	229	57

GENERAL prospect rating

#	Card	Usability rating	Prospect rating	Approx. price
01.	8800 Ultra SLI 2x768MB, 612/2160	474	1939	1400
02.	8800 Ultra 768MB, 655/2250	763	1702	720
03.	8800 Ultra 768MB, 612/2160	720	1609	700
04.	8800 GTX 768MB, 575/1800	777	1553	610
05.	HD 2900 XT 1024MB, 750/2000	686	1348	530
06.	8800 GTS 640MB, 512/1600	824	1331	440
07.	HD 2900 XT 512MB, 750/1660	829	1304	419
08.	8800 GTS 320MB, 512/1600	904	1200	345
09.	X1950 XTX 512MB, 650/2000	506	963	368
10.	8600 GTS 256MB, 720/2200	841	847	201
11.	X1950 PRO 512MB, 575/1370	719	815	195
12.	X1950 PRO 256MB, 580/1400	852	765	149
13.	HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/2200	851	763	155
14.	HD 2600 XT 256MB, 800/1400	994	728	121
15.	8600 GT 256MB, 560/1560	948	719	129
16.	HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 700/1400	970	687	110
17.	HD 2600 PRO 256MB, 600/1000	841	622	100
18.	X1650 PRO 256MB 590/1380	770	521	80
19.	8500 GT 256MB, 450/800	730	500	82
20.	7900 GS 256MB, 450/1320	418	492	129
21.	HD 2400 XT 256MB, 700/1600	726	480	73
22.	X1300 XT 256MB 500/800	843	459	57
23.	7600 GT 256MB, 560/1400	361	433	118

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

We thank all the companies that provided us with graphics cards and other equipment for our 3Digest, including:
Chaintech Russia and personally Alexander Petrushin,
Zotac,
BFG Russia and personally Mikhail Proshletsov,
EVGA Russia and personally Victoria Nikolaeva,
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 provided by HIPER

The Dell 3007WFP monitor was provided by NVIDIA

Andrey Vorobiev (anvakams@ixbt.com)	Danil Gridasov (degust@ixbt.com)

11.09.2007