| #38. Posted at 10:37 AM on Jan 27th 2008 | Edit Reply |
|
indeego |
All this needs is higher resolutions and some AA and we'll have something a tad more useful.
 |
| Edit Reply |
|
Usacomp2k3 |
still is a good start though. Especially for someone that doesn't know anything about computers.
That said, I would think it would be more useful for the baseline, instead of being $0 and 0 3dmarks, to be that which is achieved by, say, the Intel GMA3000 and $0. Then you could look at how well a discreet card does compared to what amounts to a free graphics card with many OEM computers. |
#31, That was spectacular.
:
Da_Boss
(#37)
«
| Edit Reply |
|
DreadCthulhu |
E2650??? I looked at Intel's site, as well as Googling, and found no processor by that model number. Also, the cheapest Intel dual core on Newegg is the Celeron E1200 for $65, the same price as the Athlon 64 x2 4200+, which is the faster chip.
|
#9, i meant e2160
:
donkeycrock
(#12)
«
| Edit Reply |
|
green |
lol
8800 ultra - $634.40 - 10663 3dmarks 8800 gts - $313.82 - 10733 3dmarks 8800 gt - $211.83 - 10183 3dmarks tough choice there either -4.5% performance for 1/3 the price or +0.6% performance for 1/2 the price someone please kill the ultra series |
| Edit Reply |
|
ChronoReverse |
Unbelievably inaccurate to use 3DMarks per dollar as the metric. Especially if they're "drawing on the community". The 3Dmark score includes the CPU score which varies wildly. Because of this, even if all the CPU's were identical, the "value" is still skewed towards lower performing cards.
|
| Edit Reply |
|
Kunikos |
Price / performance ratio is only meaningful if the performance is high enough to be an acceptable level of graphical detail (resolution, texturing level, AF, HDR, etc) and framerate. If you think it's a waste to spend $200 on a card that can't even pull a total-minimum 23 FPS at the native resolution in your current-favorite or want-to-play games, then this chart is meaningless.
|
| Edit Reply |
|
donkeycrock |
what a crappy table, my e2650 E2160 would blow away any AMD X2 chip, and costs the same also.
edit; was AMD fan, now intel fan, i switch based on benchmarks, and price |
#8, hehe @ #8
:
VILLAIN_xx
(#17)
«
| Edit Reply |
|
pogsnet |
Yes this is helpful
Athlon X2 is generally worth it for the money based on performance and price. For Dual cores it is always Athlon X2 but in the case of QUAD cores Q6600 is the best. |
| Edit Reply |
|
Krogoth |
Handy guide for newbies.
However, it inherits the same problem as all Futuremark products. It does not accurately predict real-world performance. |
| Edit Reply |
|
Folk |
They're showing that a 512MB 8800 GTS has a higher estimated 3DMark score than a 8800 Ultra? Dat's not right.
|
| Edit Reply |
|
Gerbil Jedidiah |
I agree there are many variables that muddy the scientific value of the "3DMarks per dollar" score, however, given the large pool of people who submit results I would think that this score is a fairly valid and useful ranking. I will definitely look at this the next time I buy a videocard.
I wouldn't buy a card solely on this result though as the performance in 3DMarks06 of a videocard does not always reflect how relatively well that card will perform in a game such as Crysis or CoD4. An example would be how AMD's 3870 crossfire system seems to do so well in 3DMarks06, but falls behind the 8800GT SLI in most gaming benches. |