|
eVGA GeForce2 MX Showdown
OpenGL Performance
By: Jonathan
Martini - June 20, 2001
You all know Quake 3 Arena
timedemo results have to be included in every review as it's the most
demanding OpenGL based game available and is so widely used that a review
without it would be useless to allow a comparison of cards. Keep in mind that
high quality sound was enabled which provides a true measure of game
performance.
Quake 3 was updated to its most recent version: 1.27h beta. The
scores are from demo127. The latest demo is much more intense than the old
demo001 found in pre1.17 versions, so the scores may seem low. The low scores
are a good way to test the card in it's most intense moments. High-quality
textures and geometry were enabled as well as high-quality sound.
Quake 3 Arena - 16 bit performance
The first batch of results tell an odd story. The 32MB variant,
rules over both other cards in the higher resolution departments. Performance at
lower resolution is almost identical with less than 1 fps spreading the
competitors.
Quake 3 Arena - 32 bit performance
The 32 bit test is much more taxing on the memory bandwidth.
This is the area in which the additional 32 megs of memory onboard the 64MB card
allow it to reign supreme over the rest of the MX cards.
The spread between the MX and the new MX400 is most visible at
800x600, with more than 7 fps between the MX and the 64 meg MX400. The
additional 32 megs memory does improve performance substantially even if they're
both clocked at 166MHz.
MDK2 is a great example of a game that takes full advantage of
onboard T&L featured in the GeForce series of cards. When paired up with a
GeForce series card and a decent CPU, this game's a screamer.
MDK2 - 16 bit performance
The same story as Q3; Almost identical performance at low
resolutions, but the faster clocked 32 meg version blows the others away at
1280x1024, beating the 64 meg version by a whopping 9 fps!
MDK2 - 32 bit performance
I really didn't expect these results. I thought the 64 MB card
would rule once again at 32 bit performance as it did in Q3, alas the 200MHz
memory clock of the 32MB variant keep it 12 fps a head of both other contenders
at 1024x768. Quite a feat to behold!
The performance of the 64MMB version is almost identical to the
of the original MX. Pitiful!
I'd like to welcome a new addition to my benchmarking suite: Bustard's GL Excess
software. The whole demo was programmed by one man in a matter of weeks. The
test suite is composed of a variety of scenes testing various rendering speeds
in different conditions.
GL Excess 1024x768 - 32 bit performance
Once again, the 32MB outperforms its fellow
competitors for the title of best MX card. The performance of the 64MB is
identical to that of the original MX. I'm assuming this is so as the memory
bandwidth isn't due to the use of large textures or a large frame buffer, both
areas in which the additional memory available on the 64MB version would greatly
improve performance.
Examination of the results leads me to
believe that the faster memory speed (200MHz) allows the GPU to communicate at a
much faster rate than the other two cards who's memory clocks in at 166MHz which
improves the performance drastically.
Next Page: Direct3D Performance
| 
