Newsgroup: it.comp.hardware.video-3d
Titolo: Test su molte schede 3D di Brian Hook [lungo!]

Scusate la lunghezza del post, volevo riportare le prove fatte da Brian Hook
(ID) con varie schede presenti sul mercato e future con i vari commenti. Non
ho il tempo di tradurre, spero l'inglese non crei troppi problemi. Comunque
i risultati dei bench sono comprensibili a tutti credo.
Spero interessi a qualcuno.
--------------
To answer that, let's just say "I ran the numbers". But first, let us
establish some things:
1. The test system, as I mentioned the other day, is a pretty big, macked
out, p1mped up system from hell. It's an HP Pavilion 8190 Pentium 2/300 with
AGP, 6GB HDD, some kind of soundcard (disabled for testing), etc. etc. A
pretty nice system. Oh, and 96MB of RAM.
2. Now, please do NOT send me mail whining that this system is not
indicative
of what everyone has. I KNOW this already. But if I test on a
Pentium/200MMX,
people are gonna complain that they don't know what kind of p1mped out new
system to get, or they'll complain that my test system should match our
minimum requirements. If I test on a P5/133, people are gonna complain, once
again, that they don't know what kind of NEW system to get, or they'll
complain
that I'm testing CPU performance, not hardware performance.
3. Yes, certain accelerators are very dependent on CPU performance. If I had
a P5/133, I would NOT get a PowerVR or a RIVA128 -- these two chipsets are
real dependent on CPU performance, more so than their competitors.
4. A Pentium 2 was pretty much needed because I wanted to test AGP parts
along
with PCI parts. Also, some chips like the RIVA128 are going out standard on
a
lot of Pentium 2 machines, so NVidia will have a (valid) argument that if I
test a RIVA on a P90 that this is NOT typical of a RIVA in the field.
So, I know I can't make everyone else happy, but I CAN make myself happy.
I'm
sure other people will run the benchmarks on lower end systems and print
their
results, so all is not lost.
5. These numbers, and chipset opinions, are GOING TO BE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE
OF GLQUAKE. This may seem like common sense, but I KNOW some people are
going
to whine that the numbers are lower than GLQUAKE's, so please...don't. Also,
the performance dependencies of Quake2 are significantly different than that
of
GLQuake -- we have lots more triangles going on, and I believe a lot more
textures. This means that boards that work great with GLQuake (e.g. PowerVR
PCX2) aren't so hot with Quake2, and vice versa (Permedia2 is arguably a
better
board for Quake2 than Quake because its triangle setup performance makes up
for
its poor fill-rate).
Tests were run 640x480 and 512x384, fullscreen, at 16bpp resolution, with
sound disabled, using "sync to retrace" disabled if at all possible. Tests
were run twice, and the best of the two scores was recorded. I did not get
a chance to test the ATI Rage Pro because I don't have NT installed -- all
the more reason to see these guys support an ICD -- and I did not get a
chance to test the Rendition V2100 boards since they don't seem to work with
the V2200 software Rendition provided. I used DEMOMAP DEMO1.DM2 to run
the test. I also did not exec ANY configs, since this can throw off figures
if you inadvertently set "hand 2" or something. All tests were performed
under Win95 OSR 2.1 with no other applications running. Occasionally I would
run a test at higher resolution "just because".
As a "control" number I ran the test in software, fullscreen, using
DirectDraw
on the Permedia2.
No overclocking of any type was done, and I did not run any "tweaks". I'm
trying to represent the type of performance Joe User would get if he bought
his
system at CompUSA, grabbed some add-in board (if necessary), then went home
and played.
****************************************************
* sorted alphabetically *
****************************************************
Board Chipset Resolution FPS
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo Rush 6MB 640x480 18.2
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo Rush 6MB 512x384 22.9
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 4/4/4 1024x768 61.4
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 4/4/4 960x720 61.4
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 4/4/4 800x600 67.1
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 4/4/4 640x480 67.5
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 4/4/4 512x384 67.3
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 4/4/4 800x600 56.6
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 4/4/4 640x480 65.5
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 4/4/4 512x384 67.4
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 2/2/2 800x600 66.4
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 2/2/2 640x480 66.8
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 2/2/2 512x384 67.2
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 2/2/2 640x480 65.4
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 2/2/2 512x384 67.3
Canopus Pure3D 3Dfx Voodoo 6MB 640x480 27.0
Canopus Pure3D 3Dfx Voodoo 6MB 512x384 39.6
Diamond Monster3D 3Dfx Voodoo 4MB 640x480 26.7
Diamond Monster3D 3Dfx Voodoo 4MB 512x384 39.3
Matrox M3D PowerVR PCX2 800x600 17.3
Matrox M3D PowerVR PCX2 640x480 22.6
Matrox M3D PowerVR PCX2 512x384 27.0
Quantum3D 100-4440 3Dfx Voodoo SLI 2/4/4 800x600 36.0
Quantum3D 100-4440 3Dfx Voodoo SLI 2/4/4 640x480 47.4
Quantum3D 100-4440 3Dfx Voodoo SLI 2/4/4 512x384 48.3
Rendition Reference Rendition V2200 AGP 640x480 22.9
Rendition Reference Rendition V2200 AGP 512x384 31.0
STB Velocity128 NVidia RIVA128 AGP 800x600
STB Velocity128 NVidia RIVA128 AGP 640x480 22.9
STB Velocity128 NVidia RIVA128 AGP 512x384 25.7
STB Velocity128 NVidia RIVA128 PCI 800x600
STB Velocity128 NVidia RIVA128 PCI 640x480 19.4
STB Velocity128 NVidia RIVA128 PCI 512x384 21.8
STB ? 3DLabs Permedia2 AGP 640x480 17.0
STB ? 3DLabs Permedia2 AGP 512x384(W) 17.2
ref_soft 640x480 15.5
ref_soft 320x240 33.2
****************************************************
* sorted by performance *
****************************************************
Board Chipset Resolution FPS
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 4/4/4 640x480 67.5
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 4/4/4 512x384 67.4
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 2/2/2 512x384 67.3
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 4/4/4 512x384 67.3
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 2/2/2 512x384 67.2
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 4/4/4 800x600 67.1
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 2/2/2 640x480 66.8
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 2/2/2 800x600 66.4
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 4/4/4 640x480 65.5
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 2/2/2 640x480 65.4
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 4/4/4 1024x768 61.4
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 4/4/4 960x720 61.4
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 4/4/4 800x600 56.6
Quantum3D 100-4440 3Dfx Voodoo SLI 2/4/4 512x384 48.3
Quantum3D 100-4440 3Dfx Voodoo SLI 2/4/4 640x480 47.4
Canopus Pure3D 3Dfx Voodoo 6MB 512x384 39.6
Diamond Monster3D 3Dfx Voodoo 4MB 512x384 39.3
Quantum3D 100-4440 3Dfx Voodoo SLI 2/4/4 800x600 36.0
ref_soft 320x240 33.2
Rendition Reference Rendition V2200 AGP 512x384 31.0
Canopus Pure3D 3Dfx Voodoo 6MB 640x480 27.0
Matrox M3D PowerVR PCX2 512x384 27.0
Diamond Monster3D 3Dfx Voodoo 4MB 640x480 26.7
STB Velocity128 NVidia RIVA128 AGP 512x384 25.7
Rendition Reference Rendition V2200 AGP 640x480 22.9
STB Velocity128 NVidia RIVA128 AGP 640x480 22.9
Matrox M3D PowerVR PCX2 640x480 22.6
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo Rush 6MB 512x384 22.9
STB Velocity128 NVidia RIVA128 PCI 512x384 21.8
STB Velocity128 NVidia RIVA128 PCI 640x480 19.4
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo Rush 6MB 640x480 18.2
Matrox M3D PowerVR PCX2 800x600 17.3
STB ? 3DLabs Permedia2 AGP 512x384(W) 17.2
STB ? 3DLabs Permedia2 AGP 640x480 17.0
ref_soft 640x480 15.5
****************************************************
* sorted by resolution then performance *
****************************************************
Board Chipset Resolution FPS
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 4/4/4 512x384 67.4
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 4/4/4 512x384 67.3
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 2/2/2 512x384 67.3
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 2/2/2 512x384 67.2
Quantum3D 100-4440 3Dfx Voodoo SLI 2/4/4 512x384 48.3
Canopus Pure3D 3Dfx Voodoo 6MB 512x384 39.6
Diamond Monster3D 3Dfx Voodoo 4MB 512x384 39.3
Rendition Reference Rendition V2200 AGP 512x384 31.0
Matrox M3D PowerVR PCX2 512x384 27.0
STB Velocity128 NVidia RIVA128 AGP 512x384 25.7
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo Rush 6MB 512x384 22.9
STB Velocity128 NVidia RIVA128 PCI 512x384 21.8
STB ? 3DLabs Permedia2 AGP 512x384(W) 17.2
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 4/4/4 640x480 67.5
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 2/2/2 640x480 66.8
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 4/4/4 640x480 65.5
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 2/2/2 640x480 65.4
Quantum3D 100-4440 3Dfx Voodoo SLI 2/4/4 640x480 47.4
Canopus Pure3D 3Dfx Voodoo 6MB 640x480 27.0
Diamond Monster3D 3Dfx Voodoo 4MB 640x480 26.7
Rendition Reference Rendition V2200 AGP 640x480 22.9
STB Velocity128 NVidia RIVA128 AGP 640x480 22.9
Matrox M3D PowerVR PCX2 640x480 22.6
STB Velocity128 NVidia RIVA128 PCI 640x480 19.4
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo Rush 6MB 640x480 18.2
STB ? 3DLabs Permedia2 AGP 640x480 17.0
Intergraph Realizm Intergraph Realizm 640x480 16.8
ref_soft 640x480 15.5
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 4/4/4 800x600 67.1
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 2/2/2 800x600 66.4
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 4/4/4 800x600 56.6
Quantum3D 100-4440 3Dfx Voodoo SLI 2/4/4 800x600 36.0
Matrox M3D PowerVR PCX2 800x600 17.3
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 4/4/4 1024x768 61.4
3Dfx Reference 3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI 4/4/4 960x720 61.4
ref_soft 320x240 33.2
---------------------------------
General Comments
---------------------------------
Let there be no doubt, there is no new sheriff in town, the current one just
got a lot meaner. Sure, the Voodoo2 4/4/4 SLI board isn't going to be that
common -- but if you can afford one, you'll have performance at 1024x768 at
almost DOUBLE the nearest 3Dfx competitor's performance at 512x384.
How ya like them apples?
Alright now, this is how this is gonna work. First, all the news pages are
going to post links, and eventually this plan file will be forwarded to all
the appropriate people at all the various hardware companies. All the people
that are going to end up looking bad are going to bitch at me because of
unfair comparisons, I didn't run on a slower machine, etc. All the people
that are looking good are going to end up bitching at me because I didn't
make them look better. Everyone is going to have nit picky gripes about
miscellaneous crap, including, I'm sure:
"we run faster in a window"
"we run faster fullscreen"
"we're scalable" (i.e. we need a faster CPU)
"they're CPU dependent" (i.e. they suck on slower CPUs)
"we support 24-bit"
"they don't support 24-bit"
"we have [insert feature here]"
"we have better image quality"
"you're using their beta drivers"
"you're not using our beta drivers"
---------------------------------
3Dfx Voodoo
---------------------------------
image quality: good (identical to Voodoo)
performance: very good
price/performance: good
WinNT support: yes
full OpenGL ICD: no
notes:
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- look at the scores, and realize
just how long ago this chipset shipped. I'm still in awe.
I didn't have a 4/2/2 so that I could run at 800x600. When I get that I will
toss it into the mix.
The Canopus didn't show any significant performance increase, but this is
because I'm measuring OVERALL performance, and I'm NOT measuring transient
spikes in performance (i.e. stuttering). We're looking into ways of
measuring
framerate consistency in addition to measuring average framerate. The
Canopus
is still definitely a better board than the Monster3D -- that extra 2MB will
go a long way towards smoothing framerate, unfortunately that's simply not
going to be quantified up very well under a TIMEDEMO benchmark.
That Quantum3D had decent performance, but definitely not enough to justify
the price. Note that it didn't see a huge performance boost at 512x384 vs.
640x480, indicating a throughput bottleneck of some type.
---------------------------------
3Dfx Voodoo2
---------------------------------
image quality: good
performance: insane
price/performance: unknown
WinNT support: yes
full OpenGL ICD: no
notes:
OH MY GOD.
Fine, there were some visual glitches, but this is a pre-production board
with
pre-production drivers, I imagine it's going to be a bit faster when it
ships.
I just hope they don't pull a Rendition and take 10 months to ship. Notice
that going to SLI doesn't really buy you that much except higher
resolutions --
they have so much fill rate that they are limited by throughput almost
completely across the board. On a the uber-Voodoo2 (4/4/4 SLI) there pretty
much isn't a difference in performance when running from 512x385 to
1024x768.
---------------------------------
3Dfx Voodoo Rush
---------------------------------
image quality: good (identical to Voodoo)
performance: okay
price/performance: poor
WinNT support: no
full OpenGL ICD: no
notes:
Setting gl_swapinterval did not result in any visible tearing, so either it
is
being ignored or they are triple buffering automatically (which would be
cool).
---------------------------------
3DLabs Permedia2
---------------------------------
image quality: poor (no MIP-mapping, no colored lighting)
performance: okay
price/performance: average
WinNT support: yes
full OpenGL ICD: yes
notes:
This board is perfectly adequate for games and level editing, although it
won't excel at either. They're missing some texture formats, have pretty
icky image quality, and mediocre performance, however they do fully support
OpenGL and they also work with Windows NT. Oh, and they also support a
full 8MB.
---------------------------------
Intergraph Realizm
---------------------------------
image quality: excellent (32-bit ARGB, trilinear)
performance: poor
price/performance: very poor
WinNT support: yes
full OpenGL ICD: yes
notes:
This test was run on a Pentium Pro 200 instead of a Pentium II. I'll rerun
the tests when I get access to American's machine which is a Pentium II. As
you can see, the Realizm isn't the world's greatest performer, but it does
have very nice image quality and integrates flawlessly with GDI under WinNT.
---------------------------------
NEC PowerVR PCX2
---------------------------------
image quality: very poor (blocky, ugly, bad colored lighting)
performance: good
price/performance: good
WinNT support: no
full OpenGL ICD: no
notes:
Very CPU dependent performance, very bad image quality. I'm amazed at what
their driver writer has managed to squeeze out of this thing.
---------------------------------
NVidia RIVA128
---------------------------------
image quality: poor (some sparkling, weird looking textures)
performance: good
price/performance: good
WinNT support: yes
full OpenGL ICD: yes
notes:
Very CPU dependent performance, image quality would have been much better
if they had implemented per-pixel MIP mapping. We got a good apples to
apples
comparison of PCI vs. AGP with this board, and the performance difference
works out to about 18% faster for AGP. I couldn't get 800x600 to work, but
when I do I will put that number in -- I'll probably run a lot of these
tests at 800x600 just to be complete.
---------------------------------
Rendition V2200
---------------------------------
image quality: good (no per-pixel MIP mapping)
performance: good
price/performance: good
WinNT support: yes
full OpenGL ICD: yes
Dammit, Rendition, when are you gonna ship this puppy?! I am emphatically
enthusiastic about this chipset, it's got great performance, and it's a
fully
integrated part that does 3D-in-a-window really well. It looks great, has
awesome image quality, a full feature set (except for per-pixel MIP
mapping),
and in general just rocks.
These numbers are probably a little lower than they should be, since it
looked
like syncing to vertical retrace was enabled and I don't know how to disable
sync on the V2200.
But it ain't shipped yet. *sigh*
--
-=================[ ICQ:   787595 ]=================-
       Marco Braga - Email: 
bra...@tin.it
            F.A.Q. sulle schede 3D / 3dfx
 
http://www.ludus.com/TECNICO/schede3d/
 Join The Wild Wereboar Team  RC5-64 Project effort!
 
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Horizon/5766
-===================================================-

Veramente interessante. Piccola curiosita': come diavolo ha fatto ad
avere le schede col Voodoo 2 ?!?!?
Se permettete un commento, i chip Voodoo 2 sono veramente incredibili:
punteggio praticamente DOPPIO di un Voodoo normale (quello della
Monster) o di un RIVA 128.
Prestazioni simili non faranno altro che aumentare le attese dei
consumatori (NOI!) e sono una buona scusa per alzare i prezzi.
Ho il VAGO sospetto che vi possa essere una operazione commerciale
dietro questo test..... no?
Ciao
Wizard
---------------
Rimuovi le k dall'indirizzo per rispondere

dietro questo test..... no?
Francamente conoscendo la persona non lo credo. In fondo a lui interessa
vendere QuakeII, non una particolare scheda 3D.
A parte le schede con il Voodoo 2 ci sono diverse altre schede che comunque
si comportano bene.
