iXBT Labs - Computer Hardware in Detail

Platform

Video

Multimedia

Mobile

Other

GeCube RADEON HD 3650 O.C. and Point Of View 9600 GSO/GT EXD



<< Previous page

     Next page >>

Performance tests

Testbed

  • Intel Core2 Extreme QX9650 (3000 MHz) CPU
  • Zotac 790i Ultra motherboard on NVIDIA nForce 790i Ultra
  • 2GB DDR3 SDRAM Corsair 2000MHz (CAS (tCL)=5, RAS to CAS delay (tRCD)=5, Row Precharge (tRP)=5, tRAS=15)
  • WD Caviar SE WD1600JD 160GB SATA hard drive
  • Tagan TG900-BZ 900W PSU
  • Windows Vista 32bit SP1, DirectX 10.1
  • Dell 3007WFP 30-inch monitor
  • ATI CATALYST 8.6; NVIDIA 175.16 and 177.34
  • VSync disabled

Benchmarks

  • Call Of Juarez (Techland/Ubisoft) -- DirectX 9.0, Shaders 3.0 (HDR), maximum quality settings; demo, batch file included.
  • S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 1.003 (GSC Game World/THQ) -- DirectX 9.0, maximum quality settings (dynamic lighting enabled); demo, copy files to the savegames folder, run the game, load level 'ixbt3', and type "demo_play ixbt3" in the console.
  • 3DMark Vantage 1.00 (FutureMark) -- DirectX 10.0, Shaders 4.0, multitexturing, 'Extreme' settings.
  • CRYSIS 1.2 (Crytek/EA), DirectX 10.0, Shaders 4.0, 'Very High' settings, levels 'Rescue' and 'Harbor'; batch file, e-mail us to obtain the timedemo. We express gratitude to CRYTEK for creating a timedemo for iXBT.com / Digit-Life.
  • Company Of Heroes Opposing Fronts (Relic Entertainment/THQ) -- DirectX 10.0, Shaders 4.0, maximum quality settings; batch file, run the game, invoke graphics settings and click the test button.
  • World In Conflict 1.007 (Massive Entertainment/Sierra) -- DirectX 10.0, Shaders 4.0, 'Very High' settings with adjusted AA and AF; run the game, invoke graphics settings and click the test button.
  • 3DMark06 1.10 (FutureMark) -- DirectX 9.0c, multitexturing, 'Trilinear' settings.

Note that performance charts are located on a dedicated page, because they don't fit a reasonable resolution.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

Performance charts: S.T.A.L.K.E.R.



World In Conflict

Performance charts: World In Conflict



Call Of Juarez

Performance charts: CoJ



Company Of Heroes

Performance charts: CoH



3DMark Vantage: Graphics MARKS

Performance charts: 3DMark Vantage: Graphics MARKS



3DMark06: SHADER 2.0 MARKS

Performance charts: 3DMark06 SM2.0 MARKS



3DMark06: SHADER 3.0 MARKS

Performance charts: 3DMark06 SM3.0 MARKS



Conclusions

I repeat that all cards are divided into three groups (according to price ranges) on charts. Each group is marked with its own color.

Point Of View GeForce 9600 GT Wall-E EXD Edition 512MB is a very popular product with an excellent price-performance ratio, like all overclocked 9600GT cards. Add to this an excellent cooling system. A modern popular game in the bundle makes this product even more attractive.

Point Of View GeForce 9600 GSO EXD Edition 384MB belongs to the 8800 GS series (aka 9600 GSO). It's still a strange product, because it's apparently outperformed by 8800 GT, but sometimes goes on par with 9600 GT, especially its overclocked modifications. One thing is clear: NVIDIA has to use G92 rejects somewhere. So they go to these cards. Besides, the bus is pared down to reduce performance. So 9600 GSO may be successful only if its price is equal to or lower than that of 9600 GT. Considering that such cards are based on sterling 256-bit PCBs, I can't say it's a very expedient product. What concerns this card from PoV, it stands out with its higher operating frequencies. However, the cooling system is noisy and not very efficient. A game in the bundle can hardly make up for it.

GeCube RADEON HD 3650 O.C.Edition 512MB is another RADEON 2600 like modification. But it's equipped with 512 MB of memory. Besides, engineers tried to design a decent cooling system here, which is still too fragile (as all GeCube solutions). You can accidentally skew it, so it will become noisy (as in our case) or it may accidentally fall off, as in 3870 X2. In other respects it's a decent product for its price.

Afterword

A few words about our benchmarks.

In our updated FRAPS review we have illustrated how crude and inaccurate tests with this utility are. Testers do not have other tools, except for benchmarks built into games.

This article and its first part explain that it's sometimes possible to test games with integrated and identically looped demos. Although this implies lots of potential errors, since measurement accuracy depends on a given tester: whether he starts/stops FRAPS in time or does it too late/early.

But I have run across situations, when demo load changes abruptly in the very beginning or end. So a half-second delay in starting/stopping the utility changes the average FPS by 15-20%. That's not a measurement error anymore - such a test is a total waste of time. One time you delay the test, another time you start it too early (not intentionally, of course), and you end up with absolutely different performance results.

But even that's not the most important thing. The fact is, there are almost no games with built-in demos anymore. So, testers are forced to use a method that we deem totally unacceptable. They measure gaming performance by walking a straight line from the a starting point in a scene to a selected destination (the nearest fence, tree, etc.).

We all understand that it's impossible to navigate to a finish spot in precisely the same route with different cards and in different resolutions. Besides, such games always introduce random elements into a scene, and objects may be placed slightly differently on the same scene.

Unfortunately, websites that publish a huge number of tests do not always reveal their test methods for each game (except for those with built-in benchmarks).

So, we believe that it's better to offer a limited number of game tests, but each will be crystal clear, accurate and showing actual differences between graphics cards.

Point Of View GeForce 9600 GT Wall-E EXD Edition 512MB and Point Of View GeForce 9600 GSO EXD Edition 384MB get the Excellent Package award.




We express gratitude to
Point Of View and Gecube
for provided graphics cards.

PSU provided by TAGAN,
Monitor provided by NVIDIA.

Write a comment below. No registration needed!


<< Previous page

Article navigation:

Page 1: Introduction, graphics cards

Page 2: Cooling

Page 3: Bundles, packages

Page 4: Performance tests, conclusions



blog comments powered by Disqus

  Most Popular Reviews More    RSS  

AMD Phenom II X4 955, Phenom II X4 960T, Phenom II X6 1075T, and Intel Pentium G2120, Core i3-3220, Core i5-3330 Processors

Comparing old, cheap solutions from AMD with new, budget offerings from Intel.
February 1, 2013 · Processor Roundups

Inno3D GeForce GTX 670 iChill, Inno3D GeForce GTX 660 Ti Graphics Cards

A couple of mid-range adapters with original cooling systems.
January 30, 2013 · Video cards: NVIDIA GPUs

Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Surround 5.1

An external X-Fi solution in tests.
September 9, 2008 · Sound Cards

AMD FX-8350 Processor

The first worthwhile Piledriver CPU.
September 11, 2012 · Processors: AMD

Consumed Power, Energy Consumption: Ivy Bridge vs. Sandy Bridge

Trying out the new method.
September 18, 2012 · Processors: Intel
  Latest Reviews More    RSS  

i3DSpeed, September 2013

Retested all graphics cards with the new drivers.
Oct 18, 2013 · 3Digests

i3DSpeed, August 2013

Added new benchmarks: BioShock Infinite and Metro: Last Light.
Sep 06, 2013 · 3Digests

i3DSpeed, July 2013

Added the test results of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 and AMD Radeon HD 7730.
Aug 05, 2013 · 3Digests

Gainward GeForce GTX 650 Ti BOOST 2GB Golden Sample Graphics Card

An excellent hybrid of GeForce GTX 650 Ti and GeForce GTX 660.
Jun 24, 2013 · Video cards: NVIDIA GPUs

i3DSpeed, May 2013

Added the test results of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770/780.
Jun 03, 2013 · 3Digests
  Latest News More    RSS  

Platform  ·  Video  ·  Multimedia  ·  Mobile  ·  Other  ||  About us & Privacy policy  ·  Twitter  ·  Facebook


Copyright © Byrds Research & Publishing, Ltd., 1997–2011. All rights reserved.