Low 2D scores with next generation card.

[no1ninja]

Why are my 2D scores so low on the same machine? I upgraded from a x1600 DDR3 to a HD 2600XT DDR4.


Also is the 3D test flawed? The x1600HDMI got 2000 on 3dMark06 and the HD2600XT got 5050.


According to this benchmark my Passmark rating has tumbled by 80 points because of my video card upgrade.

[David (PassMark)]

Were there any other changes (hardware, or software or configuration) to the machine between the two tests?

For the 3D tests you got 60 Frames with both cards for the complex test. Maybe the frame rate is being limited to the video refresh rate (which of often also 60hz)

[no1ninja]

No there were no changes to the system except the video card.

I actually ran the test first with the old card... and than ran it with the new one to see the improvment and was, well... shocked. Obviously new drivers were used.

Anyway, 3dMark06 sees a big difference in the cards. However PerformanceTest does not. I posted about this issue on the Sapphire forums and got flamed about how passmark is a flawed test.

I also sent off a ticket to Sapphiere support and have not heard from them.

The card is noticebly faster in games.


As you can see below... it is a substantial upgrade in hardware specs. Getting 80 points less on the passmark rating does not sound fair, or accurate.

I understand that 2D may be flawed but 3D only 2% faster??

ATi Radeon X1600 XT PCI-E

Core Clock: 590 MHz
Memory Clock: 690 MHz (1380 DDR)
Memory Bandwidth: 22.08 GB/sec
Shader Operations: 7080 Operations/sec
Pixel Fill Rate: 2360 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 2360 MTexels/sec
Vertex Operations: 737.5 MVertices/sec
Memory Type: GDDR3
Memory Bus Type: 32x4 (128 bit)
DirectX Compliance: 9.0c
OpenGL Compliance: 2.0
PS/VS Version: 3.0/3.0
Process: 90 nm
Fragment Pipelines: 12
Vertex Pipelines: 5
Texture Units: 4
Raster Operators 4

ATi Radeon HD 2600 XT PCI-E

Core Clock: 800 MHz
Shader Clock: 800 MHz
Memory Clock: 1100 MHz (2200 DDR) DDR4
Memory Bandwidth: 35.2 GB/sec
Shader Operations: 96000 Operations/sec
Pixel Fill Rate: 3200 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 6400 MTexels/sec
Memory Type: GDDR4
Memory Bus Type: 32x4 (128 bit)
DirectX Compliance: 10.0
OpenGL Compliance: 2.1
PS/VS Version: 4.0/4.0
Process: 65 nm
Shader Processors: 120
Pipeline Layout: Super-scalar MADDx5
Texture Units: 8
Raster Operators 4

[David (PassMark)]

If you can show any contrary evidence to the 2D test results then we would be happy to look at it. But we have no reason to believe it is flawed and no facts have been presented to suggest this.

You could make the argument that 2D isn't important any more as all the interesting applications are using 3D, and even mediocre 2D performance is enough for 2D Office applications. This would be a valid argument for gamers. In which case ignore the 2D results.

As for the 3D test, it looks like your frame rate is limited to your monitors refresh rate in full screen 3D (as already stated). I don't think it is coincidence that both card do 60 frames a sec. The other possibility is that your PC is CPU bound and that you can't use the extra power of the new card.

[no1ninja]

I understand that the 2D is what it is.



Regarding the 3D, it is the lcd screen that is the bottleneck? The video card can most likely be a little faster but the screen can't handle the commands?

[David (PassMark)]

There is an option in PerformanceTest to limit the frame rate to the refresh rate. (Edit / Preferences). But there are additional options in some device drviers to control this and further overrides in some versions of DirectX. This might not be the problem, but it is what I would investigate first.

As stated in the Wikipedia artiicle "...For that reason it is not uncommon to limit the frame rate to the refresh rate of the monitor in a process called vertical synchronization."

And almost all LCD monitors are running at 60Hz.