So, over three very different viewsets, the board with the least raw performance as measured by the OpenGVS benchmark dominates throughout. Not to single out Nvidia, we expect that all three vendors will tune future driver versions for Viewperf 7. This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. We spend a fair amount of words describing some of the basic problems we encountered with the , compared to other boards. All state changes are derived from a trace of the running application.

Uploader: Kazilkree
Date Added: 2 December 2009
File Size: 62.29 Mb
Operating Systems: Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X
Downloads: 43198
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

As you can see, the two Quadro4 boards are the class of the field on both metrics, while the Wildcat III lags the field. Specifically, SPECviewperf deals with fewer test scenarios and a simple C program rather than the application itself, making it easier for board vendors to tune drivers to achieve better scores.

Our testing will give you a good idea as to the basic 3D geometry and rendering performance across a range of different workstation application categories, and you may find that one of the lower cost or mid-priced boards is quite suitable for your application, or possibly even better at various operations openbl the higher cost boards.

That is, you can run one OpenGL application in each monitor to the maximum single monitor resolution with no problem. I agree with Humus it all depends on what you are going to do with the card.

We start with wireframe playback, and move to shaded playback, and then facet shading playback. That said, neither of the Quadro 4 boards, which now feature bit precision, produced similar artifacts. This first segment covers low-level performance characteristics, while Part II looks at application performance and stability, and Part III focuses on dual monitor features and performance.


These tests establish a set of rendering parameters that remain consistent throughout the test, allowing the fastest possible performance. Table 7 illustrates the results. The third serious contender, 3Dlabs, was taken over on March 11 by the multimedia giant Creative. This viewset includes state changes as made by the application throughout the rendering of the model.

ATI GL FIRE – graphics card owners!! [Archive] – OpenGL Discussion and Help Forums

Well, a Radeon is openyl a higher clocked Radeon with more memory and drivers certified for a variety of highend apps. OpenGL graphics cards are used for mechanical design, digital content creation DCCCAD, data visualization, and many other specialized scientific and financial applications.

Not much has changed for the FireGL opeengl in Starnberg. In shaded playback tests, the Wildcat retained its lead, though the margin was much smaller, which is probably to be expected given that fill rate starts to become an issue. VGA DSub15 allows you to hook up an analog monitor.

OpenGL w/ FireGL 8800

We acquired and tested only four boards, since the high-end graphics card market has truly consolidated over the last few years. Running and XP, respectively but, gawds, we still have to test on 98 every so openvl. The boards are very similar, both shipping with MB DDR unified memory for frame buffer and textures. To use a football analogy, the raw tests tell us which team has the strongest and fastest players.

The fireGL with it’s drives is not made for games. Oh yeah, and compare apples to apples, not apples to pears! Creative, which turned its back on 8080 graphics business not long ago, not only wants to supply the desktop and mainstream markets with NVIDIA graphics cards, but also wants to cover the Firegll workstation segment with Wildcat cards from the 3Dlabs division.


So, over three very different viewsets, the board with the least raw performance as measured by the OpenGVS benchmark dominates throughout.

Shaded playback all scores in frames per second — oprngl is better. Also noteworthy was that the FireGL was the only board with an OpenGL rendering viewport smaller than the maximum display resolution.

They also state that through years of working with the applications vendors, their drivers are better optimized than those of competing products, allowing them to keep their admittedly slower hardware working more efficiently than either other competitor.

Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our Furegl of Use and Privacy Policy. Their new friegl company does not interfere with their traditional areas of expertise. Click here for more details about the Viewperf test [2].

OpenGL 3D Graphics Boards – Page 5 of 13 – ExtremeTech

Quite dramatic, but how did they impact actual application performance? We calculated our primitives scores with results from the first three viewsets because performance on the older sequences were likely impacted by optimizations that may not deliver real world benefits. It certainly had us cursing in frustration many times over.

ATI takes the most reasonable course, which is to default to synch always off. During the tests at least, the cards performed stably, although, when used with typical applications, it was by no means optimal. Also significant is that the FireGL uses 4-bit precision during sub-pixel rendering calculations, which produced misalignment artifacts in 3ds max as shown in Figure 2.