Make your own free website on Tripod.com
 

Voodoo Shack

 

voodoo6000_table.jpg (53436 bytes)

Home

Articles

Image Archive

Drivers

x3dfx Discussion

Links

Staff

 

Voodoo Shack: When Voodoo is what you do™

3dfxtears_small.gif (2175 bytes)

Unreal Tournament - D3D

v4.36, Thunder.dem, all detail and lighting settings maximum.

UT-D3D V5 (2) V5 (1) V4 V3 (166) V3 (183)
640x480x16 95.74 93.33 92.49 92.56 94.18
1024x768x16 85.80 48.51 48.68 47.78 50.73
1600x1200x16 44.80 19.86 20.45 failed failed

UT D3D

And the Details:

V5 5500 (2)
640x480x16 = min: 57.37 max: 191.81 avg: 95.74
1024x768x16 = min: 52.12 max: 120.60 avg: 85.80
1600x1200x16 = min: 22.59 max: 61.64 avg: 44.80

V5 5500 (1)
640x480x16 = min: 57.92 max: 143.13 avg: 93.33
1024x768x16 = min: 25.21 max: 64.47 avg: 48.51
1600x1200x16 = min: 8.84 max: 29.21 avg: 19.86


V4 4500
640x480x16 = min: 56.46 max: 144.04 avg: 92.49
1024x768x16 = min: 23.50 max: 66.68 avg: 48.68
1600x1200x16 = min: 8.81 max: 29.81 avg: 20.45

V3 3000
640x480x16 = min: 54.88 max: 137.07 avg: 92.56
1024x768x16 = min: 20.30 max: 66.77 avg: 47.78

V3 3000 (183MHz)
640x480x16 = min: 55.18 max: 148.64 avg: 94.18
1024x768x16 = min: 23.39 max: 69.18 avg: 50.73

Pretty amazing that the D3D performance mirrors GLIDE in the benchmarks.  It just goes to show that the updating and patches really improved the game in this API.  The trend in nearly identical V3 and V4 clock per clock performance also continues.  And again, the V3 at 3500 speed is faster in rendering this API than a V4, just like it was in GLIDE. Interestingly, the V3 would not allow game play or benchmarks at 1600x1200 resolution with the WHQL drivers in D3D for this title.  I'm not sure if this was a driver problem, an instability due to an overclocked AGP bus, or if the V3 just didn't have the available memory to run at this resolution in D3D in this game.  Since most people will prefer to play in resolutions that afford greater FPS anyway, I wasn't to concerned with this.  But realize the fact that only 16MB of SDRAM may limit the V3 in situations where the V4 can perform just fine.

3DMark2000

Default benchmark (1024x768x16).  3DMark grades on a weighting scale, and you can't just look at the final score and conclude one card is superior to another.  One of the nice things about 3DMark2000 is the ability to list all results, just not the final score which is vague at best.  3DMark has built in game demo benchmarks, which are excellent for testing D3D performance.  The program also lists things like single and multi-texture fill rate, texture rendering speed, and polygon count.  And if anyone is wondering, I never run 3DMark2001, since it's been proven to be biased against 3dfx cards and non-TnL cards in general.

3DM2K V5 (2) V5 (1) V4 V3 (166) V3 (183)
Score 5001 3176 3257 3328 3501
RESULTS - V5 5500 (Fastest)
Platform:    Internal
3DMark Result:    5001    3D marks
CPU Speed:    297    CPU 3D marks
Game 1 - Helicopter - Low Detail:    105.3    FPS
Game 1 - Helicopter - Medium Detail:    68.4    FPS
Game 1 - Helicopter - High Detail:    27.6    FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - Low Detail:    110.6    FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - Medium Detail:    66.2    FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - High Detail:    38.6    FPS
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing):    516.4    MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing):    591.0    MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light):    5556    KTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (4 Lights):    4832    KTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights):    4139    KTriangles/s
8MB Texture Rendering Speed:    335.0    FPS
16MB Texture Rendering Speed:    329.1    FPS
32MB Texture Rendering Speed:    259.3    FPS
64MB Texture Rendering Speed:    147.5    FPS
----------------------------------------------------

RESULTS - V5 5500 (Single)
Platform:    Internal
3DMark Result:    3176    3D marks
CPU Speed:    296    CPU 3D marks
Game 1 - Helicopter - Low Detail:    59.4    FPS
Game 1 - Helicopter - Medium Detail:    41.8    FPS
Game 1 - Helicopter - High Detail:    18.8    FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - Low Detail:    57.5    FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - Medium Detail:    50.5    FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - High Detail:    36.7    FPS
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing):    253.8    MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing):    310.5    MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light):    4888    KTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (4 Lights):    4745    KTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights):    4168    KTriangles/s
8MB Texture Rendering Speed:    155.6    FPS
16MB Texture Rendering Speed:    152.7    FPS
32MB Texture Rendering Speed:    128.7    FPS
64MB Texture Rendering Speed:    121.3    FPS
----------------------------------------------------

RESULTS - V4 4500
Platform:    Internal
3DMark Result:    3257    3D marks
CPU Speed:    306    CPU 3D marks
Game 1 - Helicopter - Low Detail:    60.2    FPS
Game 1 - Helicopter - Medium Detail:    42.9    FPS
Game 1 - Helicopter - High Detail:    20.0    FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - Low Detail:    58.2    FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - Medium Detail:    52.0    FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - High Detail:    38.1    FPS
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing):    253.9    MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing):    309.6    MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light):    5285    KTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (4 Lights):    4899    KTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights):    4208    KTriangles/s
8MB Texture Rendering Speed:    156.6    FPS
16MB Texture Rendering Speed:    154.1    FPS
32MB Texture Rendering Speed:    129.7    FPS
64MB Texture Rendering Speed:    123.5    FPS
----------------------------------------------------

RESULTS - Voodoo3 3000 (166)
Platform:    Internal
3DMark Result:    3328    3D marks
CPU Speed:    314    CPU 3D marks
Game 1 - Helicopter - Low Detail:    62.9    FPS
Game 1 - Helicopter - Medium Detail:    45.5    FPS
Game 1 - Helicopter - High Detail:    20.8    FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - Low Detail:    58.6    FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - Medium Detail:    52.0    FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - High Detail:    37.6    FPS
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing):    162.2    MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing):    319.1    MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light):    4156    KTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (4 Lights):    3702    KTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights):    3307    KTriangles/s
8MB Texture Rendering Speed:    139.9    FPS
16MB Texture Rendering Speed:    137.5    FPS
32MB Texture Rendering Speed:    119.5    FPS
64MB Texture Rendering Speed:    33.0    FPS
----------------------------------------------------

RESULTS - Voodoo3 3000 (183)
Platform:    Internal
3DMark Result:    3501    3D marks
CPU Speed:    312    CPU 3D marks
Game 1 - Helicopter - Low Detail:    67.0    FPS
Game 1 - Helicopter - Medium Detail:    48.0    FPS
Game 1 - Helicopter - High Detail:    21.7    FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - Low Detail:    62.4    FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - Medium Detail:    54.2&nb3p;   FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - High Detail:    38.4    FPS
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing):    174.6    MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing):    342.3    MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light):    4139    KTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (4 Lights):    3734    KTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights):    3296    KTriangles/s
8MB Texture Rendering Speed:    149.5    FPS
16MB Texture Rendering Speed:    146.8    FPS
32MB Texture Rendering Speed:    127.6    FPS
64MB Texture Rendering Speed:    34.0    FPS

Although the V3 gets a higher overall score than the V4 at the same clock speed, there are some interesting things to note.  The first point of interest is the nearly identical real world multi-texture fill rate of the V5 single chip, V4, and V3, all of which are within 10 MTexels/s of one another.  The single texturing of the VSA100 is far superior to that of the V3, although this may not mean much since almost all games in the last few years make heavy use of multi-texturing.  Also of great importance is the texture rendering speed of the V4 as compared to the V3.  Due to the large texture support of the VSA100, the V4 is able to mop the floor with the V3 in these benchmarks.  The in-game benchmarks of  "Helicopter" and  "Adventure" are slightly faster on the V3 3000 even at 166MHz, but performance levels again are close enough for all the cards (except the V5) that differences are negligable.  Overall performance of the V4 and V3 were astoundingly similar in this benchmark except for the items as noted.

[NEXT]

[Intro | Test System/Scaling | Benchmarks | Overclocking | Conclusion]

Copyrightę 2002 Nightstormer Productions