Announcement

**David (PassMark)** · Jul-14-2009, 03:53 AM

We have seen a few machines get very low results for the 2D Vector tests. A more typical result for your hardware would be 4 to 7 (not 0.2).

The most common cause is bad video card device drivers. The next most common cause would be external 3rd party software. Especialy apps that skin Windows.

Without studying the machine and doing some experiments it is hard to give an exact cause.

**UltraMan** · Jul-14-2009, 07:36 PM

Thanks Passmark for the information. I'll start doing some test and see if I can figure out what the problem is. I don't have any special skins, I turned off all of windows visual fx. I have AVG anti virus and the video card driver from ATI.com . Those two I'm going to try and play with and see if I can get it improved. Thanks again.

**Daxx123** · Aug-29-2009, 07:58 PM

I have the same problem! Just built a new system with an brand new AMD 720 X3, DDR3-1600, and XFX Ati 4890 video card. Everything is blazing fast except for 2D Graphics.

2D Graphics Mark score is 255

The worst 2D marks are:

Solid Vectors 0.25
Transparent Vectors 0.20

What is up with that??!!

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I don't seem to find much info about this in the internet.

Daxx123

**David (PassMark)** · Aug-29-2009, 10:01 PM

We don't know the root cause. So you need to do some experimenting.

As above,to start with look at the video card device drivers, then 3rd party apps that you have running (skinning apps, remote desktop apps, desktop management apps, color mangement apps).

They try some configuration changes to see if there is a link to some specific configuation that you have. e.g resolution, single / dual screens, window visual effects settings. If you have a spare video card, swap them, etc..

**Daxx123** · Aug-29-2009, 10:05 PM

Okay, I don't have a bunch of 3rd party software loaded because it is a fresh load of Windows XP Pro 32-bit. I installed the latest ATI drivers and a full DirectX 9c installation. I can't imagine what it could be that is killing the 2D Graphics Mark on my system.

I have a Core i7 920 and motherboard coming this week. I will be installing this video card into that system, so it will be interesting to see if the problem follows the card or not.

In the meantime, any suggestions? With a fresh load, I'm willing to experiment..not much on there to mess up.

Daxx123

**Daxx123** · Aug-29-2009, 10:18 PM

Spare video card...why didn't I think of that! I have one. Will test shortly and report back.

**Daxx123** · Aug-29-2009, 10:55 PM

Results.

XFX ATI Radeon 4890 1GB GDDR5 Video Card
2D Graphics Mark score: 255
Solid Vectors: 0.25
Transparent Vectors: 0.20
Passmark Rating: 1349

NVidia 8800 GT OC 512MB GDDR3 Video Card
2D Graphics Mark score: 1223
Solid Vectors: 12.3
Transparent Vectors: 10.9
Passmark Rating: 1764

Well, it's definitely video card related. I have a much higher passmark score after "downgrading" from a Radeon 4890 card to an NVidia 8800 GT card. My 3D marks are twice as high with the 4890, but my 2D marks are flat out pathetic. The old 8800 card is 4.8 times faster in 2D marks.

I don't know if it is drivers or hardware. Is anyone else with a 4890 card getting low 2D Graphics Marks??

Daxx123

**Daxx123** · Aug-29-2009, 11:28 PM

Even more interesting...

I found an old ATI Radeon X1300 XT, installed the legacy drivers and ran.

Results.

ATI Radeon X1300 XT Video Card
2D Graphics Mark score: 680
Solid Vectors: 12.4
Transparent Vectors: 0.60
Passmark Rating: 1403

WOW! Now this is just sickening. The old X1300XT returns a higher overall Passmark score than my fancy, new XFX 4890 card. How can this be??

Notice it performs very well in solid vectors and very poorly at transparent vectors (but still 3 times faster than the 4890).

**Daxx123** · Aug-30-2009, 12:03 AM

Apples to Apples test...sort of.

I just so happen to have a second 4890 card. This is the ATI Radeon OC 4890. So, straight from ATI (AMD).

Here we GO!

ATI Radeon OC 4890 1GB GDDR5 Video Card
2D Graphics Mark score: 252
Solid Vectors: 0.25
Transparent Vectors: 0.20
Passmark Rating: 1333

WHOA! Looks just like the XFX 4890 card. Hmmmm....

Well, unless I have two defective Radeon cards, it's looking like ATI has a driver problem at this point (or Passmark is not working correctly with the 4890 cards?)...but I have one more test coming up.

**Daxx123** · Aug-30-2009, 12:52 AM

Okay, last test. I decided to eliminate platform issues. And I bloodied up my finger on a sharp case edge swapping all these cards.

Safety first!

-------------------
First Test System:
Windows XP Pro 32-bit
AMD 720 X3 @ 3.6G CPU
Gigabyte MA770T-UD3P AM3 motherboard
4GB DDR3 Patriot Viper PC1600
XFX ATI Radeon 4890 1GB GDDR5 Video Card

2D Graphics Mark score: 255
Solid Vectors: 0.25
Transparent Vectors: 0.20
Passmark Rating: 1349
------------------
Second Test System:
Windows XP Pro 32-bit
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.6G CPU
Abit IP35 Pro motherboard
4GB DDR2 Patriot Viper PC1066
ATI Radeon OC 4890 1GB GDDR5 Video Card

2D Graphics Mark score: 244
Solid Vectors: 0.29
Transparent Vectors: 0.22
Passmark Rating: 1181
------------------

And there you have it! The Intel E8400 system is running all kinds of shell packs to get the Windows 7 "look" on XP Pro and the 2D marks are every-so-slightly better (but still suck). The AMD 720 X3 system is a fresh load of Windows. But basically, both platforms return the same "horrid" 2D Graphics Marks in Passmark with two different 4890 cards.

At this point I am thinking it is a driver problem and ATI needs to get a fire lit under their pants and check into this. Of course, Passmark should look over their software just to make sure nothing is going on there either.

I guess running a different 2D benchmark would help test further. Any suggestions?

Daxx123

**Michael (Passmark)** · Aug-31-2009, 12:48 AM

Low scores in the transparent vectors are somewhat normal for XP systems as the OS performs poorly in that regard.

We've had a look through the database of submitted baselines and it seems recently there's been a huge decline in the scores for the solid vector test on Radeon cards on XP. Looking closer it seems this has been triggered by a driver change on the part of ATI.

The results for Radeon cards on the solid vectors test takes a huge dive when the driver version is 8.612.0.0 or later. The driver version you are using can be seen in PerformanceTest or in the ATI control panel (information center->graphics software->Driver Packaging Version).

We are fairly certain that this is the problem you are seeing. If this is not the case then let us know.

**Daxx123** · Aug-31-2009, 02:54 AM

Michael,

Thanks for the info!

I do agree with your data based on my own informal research. I have had a few people report their results and the only commonality with any of the systems that did poorly in 2D Marks was Windows XP. It would be logical that it is a driver problem under Windows XP, but you were able to trace it down the the exact driver change! GREAT!

Now I know my video card is not defective and I can wait for Windows 7 and all will be better.

Daxx123

UPDATE:

Downgraded my ATI drivers to version 8.60

solid vector score increased dramatically from 0.25 to 12.7
transparent vector score slightly increased from 0.20 to 0.93

Upgraded ATI drivers back to latest version 8.64

solid vector score plummeted back to 0.25
transparent vector score back to original 0.20

And there you have it! Like Michael (Passmark) said...drivers under Windows XP.

**inteluck** · Sep-16-2009, 01:16 AM

same problem not as bad- clue?

I get a result of 2.2-2.3 on 2d solid and transparent vectors- far lower than the other 4890 in the comparison chart, as well as simple and medium 3d scores are way lower than similar systems. My total score is 1550(other components are fast)- held back by poor graphics performance- way less than other similiar systems with the same card are reporting

**inteluck** · Sep-16-2009, 01:18 AM

I have the same problem with performance in 2d and simple 3d graphics in windows 7 64bit- I will try an (older) vista 64 driver

Announcement

Low score (994), especially 2d vectors (0.2)

Low score (994), especially 2d vectors (0.2)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment