MikeC
08-17-07, 11:09 AM
The following benchmark results will be an update to our XFX GeForce 8800 Ultra XXX Edition review. (http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/xfx_geforce_8800_ultra_xxx/index.shtml) We had requests to provide benchmark results at a resolution of 1920x1200, which is native to 24" LCD monitors like Dell's 2407WFP-HC, Samsung's SyncMaster 244T and Viewsonic's 28" VX2835wm.
We learned that the XXX Edition handles the majority of games at 2560x1600 with 4x AA. But how does it perform at 1920x1200 with 4x and higher levels of AA?
http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/xfx_geforce_8800_ultra_xxx/images/benchmarks_1920x1200.png
When AA was disabled, F.E.A.R. with soft shadows had an average frame rate of 91 fps while Far Cry with High-Dynamic Range (HDR) scored 110 fps.
Note that these results were run with a beefier processor (Core2 Duo E6850) than the one used in the XXX Edition review (E6700).
Also note that the results are for Windows XP. It's been a few weeks since I logged onto Vista
If you would like to see the differences in imaqe quality between the three AA modes, we've gotcha' covered - click here (http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/xfx_geforce_8800_ultra_xxx/page_4.shtml)
We learned that the XXX Edition handles the majority of games at 2560x1600 with 4x AA. But how does it perform at 1920x1200 with 4x and higher levels of AA?
http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/xfx_geforce_8800_ultra_xxx/images/benchmarks_1920x1200.png
When AA was disabled, F.E.A.R. with soft shadows had an average frame rate of 91 fps while Far Cry with High-Dynamic Range (HDR) scored 110 fps.
Note that these results were run with a beefier processor (Core2 Duo E6850) than the one used in the XXX Edition review (E6700).
Also note that the results are for Windows XP. It's been a few weeks since I logged onto Vista
If you would like to see the differences in imaqe quality between the three AA modes, we've gotcha' covered - click here (http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/xfx_geforce_8800_ultra_xxx/page_4.shtml)